"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...
NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:

Railborne freight receives no subsidy, unlike lorries.

Where exactly do I apply for my lorry subsidy?
It's provided automatically, without application.
In your mind perhaps, dream on, don't let reality get in the way.

You've obviously forgotton about the rate of VED on lorries when the
present government came into power and what it is now?

No I havn't, I just realise thet the total amount collected by ved
and fuel tax is more than three times the amount spent on the roads.
If my truck is being subsidised where are the funds coming from,
because it isn't central government?

How much VED and fuel duty is paid by HGVs as opposed to other classes
of vehicle? How much expenditure is down to the wear and tear caused
by HGVs as opposed to other classes of vehicle? I say the sooner we
privatise the whole lot of the trunk road network the better. We are
not a communist state, there should not be thousands of miles of
highly expensive trunk road built and maintained out of central
government funds (taxes are not hypothecated in the UK) with zero
accountability. Then the private owner can charge different classes of
vehicle a toll as appropriate to the cost to them to provide the
service to that class of vehicle.

No problem Robin. I take it you'll be happy with a hike in the price of
everything you buy?


--
Conor

"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...

Nah, they just jackknife because the morons behind the wheel can't
drive safely, and cause the entire road behind them to become blocked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/2712045.stm

"On the northbound carriageway there were 12 jack-knifed lorries"

Robin


From the link you posted...

Many drivers abandoned their vehicles on the motorway and police are
trying to trace them to collect their cars.

Note the words "cars" and "abandoned".

If you insist on continuing, there's a plethora of piccies of cars
stranded in slush with lorries driving past...

--
Conor

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Conor wrote:

In article .com,
says...

Although railfreight has been growing for the last ten years mainly
due to the failure of the road system to deliver reliability. ASDA,
Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsburys have been turning to rail
increasingly
for the long stuff.

Wrong.

EDDIE STOBART who runs the warehousing at either end on behalf of the
above has turned to railfreight because Stobarts have their own
railheads and goods trains. Sending loads to Scotch by rail allows
Stobarts to free up lorries to go do other work such as the new Tesco
white goods RDC they're opening up at Goole.

Believe me, lorry journeys haven't been reduced by Stobarts putting
stuff onto rail.

Er, what? If they hadn't put that stuff on rail, they would have had
to buy more lorries for this RDC thing etc. It's not a reduction, but
it is a smaller increase!

Hardly. Still needs to go on a lorry at either end.

--
Conor

Conor wrote:


"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...
NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:

Railborne freight receives no subsidy, unlike lorries.

Where exactly do I apply for my lorry subsidy?
It's provided automatically, without application.
In your mind perhaps, dream on, don't let reality get in the way.

You've obviously forgotton about the rate of VED on lorries when the
present government came into power and what it is now?

No I havn't, I just realise thet the total amount collected by ved
and fuel tax is more than three times the amount spent on the roads.
If my truck is being subsidised where are the funds coming from,
because it isn't central government?

How much VED and fuel duty is paid by HGVs as opposed to other classes
of vehicle? How much expenditure is down to the wear and tear caused
by HGVs as opposed to other classes of vehicle? I say the sooner we
privatise the whole lot of the trunk road network the better. We are
not a communist state, there should not be thousands of miles of
highly expensive trunk road built and maintained out of central
government funds (taxes are not hypothecated in the UK) with zero
accountability. Then the private owner can charge different classes of
vehicle a toll as appropriate to the cost to them to provide the
service to that class of vehicle.

No problem Robin. I take it you'll be happy with a hike in the price of
everything you buy?



I'm happy for Road Haulage to pay its share. Then perhaps they'll be
less likely to make so many unnecessary journeys.

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:

No problem Robin. I take it you'll be happy with a hike in the price
of everything you buy?



I'm happy for Road Haulage to pay its share. Then perhaps they'll be
less likely to make so many unnecessary journeys.

That's not what I asked. And at £40 an hour in fuel costs alone, you can
bet they don't do unnecessary journeys.

--
Conor

Conor wrote:


"Silk" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:

No problem Robin. I take it you'll be happy with a hike in the price
of everything you buy?



I'm happy for Road Haulage to pay its share. Then perhaps they'll be
less likely to make so many unnecessary journeys.

That's not what I asked. And at £40 an hour in fuel costs alone, you can
bet they don't do unnecessary journeys.


Necessary and cost-effective are not the same thing. It may make
economic sense to haul something from one end of the country to the
other at £40 an hour, but put it up to £100 per hour and perhaps someone
may decide it's more cost effective to produce locally.

"Brimstone" wrote:


"Jeff York" wrote in message
news
"Brimstone" wrote:

NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:


You've been shown, you're already getting it. Unlike other
industries, road haulage is so cossetted it doesn't even have to
apply for subsidy, it gets it without having to ask.



So in fact there is no evidence, merely your groundless opinion that
trucks don't pay their way.

Taxation on lorries in particular and road vehicles in general has been
significantly reduced in recent years. That's subsidy by any measure.

No. You've fallen into the "politician speak" trap where a "reduced
increase" == "a cut". Even *if* road vehicle taxation has reduced,
which is hasn't as far as I'm aware, it is still massively in excess
of the total road expenditure.

And you're confusing the total amount taken in tax revenue with the amount
of costs imposed on the system by any one vehicle and the amount spent on
highway maintenance and build.

The total tax revenue fluctuates according to the number of licenced
vehicles in use. That number can go down as well as up. We've been told a
number of time by Conor and possibly others that there are now very many
fewer lorries on the road than in the past.

It makes no difference. In terms of tax-take v expenditure on roads
and transport infrastructure, road transport gets back around 25% of
what it pays. All the other "environmental costs" that are used in
order to "demonstrate" that road transport is subsidised are (a)
pulled out of someone's arse and (b) not balanced by the benefit side
of the cost/benefit equation.

In message , Jeff York
writes

All the other "environmental costs" that are used in
order to "demonstrate" that road transport is subsidised are (a)
pulled out of someone's arse and (b) not balanced by the benefit side
of the cost/benefit equation.

"The cost of everything and the value of nothing".

In any case, 80% of people who work for a living get there by powered
road transport, 71% of them by car, van or minibus. The people who don't
work for a living, by and large, are not subsidising anybody.


http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...s/tsgb/2006edi
tion/sectiononemodalcomparisons

--
Steve Walker

Jeff York wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote:


"Jeff York" wrote in message
news
"Brimstone" wrote:

NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:


You've been shown, you're already getting it. Unlike other
industries, road haulage is so cossetted it doesn't even have to
apply for subsidy, it gets it without having to ask.



So in fact there is no evidence, merely your groundless opinion
that trucks don't pay their way.

Taxation on lorries in particular and road vehicles in general has
been significantly reduced in recent years. That's subsidy by any
measure.

No. You've fallen into the "politician speak" trap where a "reduced
increase" == "a cut". Even *if* road vehicle taxation has reduced,
which is hasn't as far as I'm aware, it is still massively in excess
of the total road expenditure.

And you're confusing the total amount taken in tax revenue with the
amount of costs imposed on the system by any one vehicle and the
amount spent on highway maintenance and build.

The total tax revenue fluctuates according to the number of licenced
vehicles in use. That number can go down as well as up. We've been
told a number of time by Conor and possibly others that there are
now very many fewer lorries on the road than in the past.

It makes no difference. In terms of tax-take v expenditure on roads
and transport infrastructure, road transport gets back around 25% of
what it pays.

So what? This is about the income and expenditure derived from lorries. As I
said, the tax-take can go down as well as up .

Why should there be any relationship between the overall tax take for road
vehicles and the amount spen on road maintenance and building?

All the other "environmental costs" that are used in
order to "demonstrate" that road transport is subsidised are (a)
pulled out of someone's arse and (b) not balanced by the benefit side
of the cost/benefit equation.

No one has mentioned "environmental costs".

Believe me, lorry journeys haven't been reduced by Stobarts putting
stuff onto rail.

Er, what? If they hadn't put that stuff on rail, they would have had to
buy more lorries for this RDC thing etc. It's not a reduction, but
it is a smaller increase!

Hardly. Still needs to go on a lorry at either end.

Rail is so much more efficient for long trunk flows like this, also he has
expanded his business without increasing the amount of lorries on the road