Two Transport Stories

Two transport stories come to my attention this morning. The first story concerns the proposed stealth tax on people who use their own vehicles for work:

Millions of drivers who use their own cars for work face sharply increased taxes under proposals being considered by ministers, it was confirmed last night.

Even those doing voluntary work could be caught by a scheme drawn up by Revenue and Customs.

Those who could be affected range from salesman to vicars in sprawling rural parishes.

Should the idea be adopted, a motorist driving 10,000 miles a year for an employer could face an additional tax bill of £500 to £1,500 annually.

The plans were described as another “stealth tax” by Chris Grayling, the Tory transport spokesman.

Frankly, this beggars belief. It is one thing to tax company cars as this is effectively extra income in the form of payment in kind. However, people who use their own vehicles are doing their employer a big favour. The expenses paid per mile just about cover the costs of doing so. According the AA, in many cases they would amount to a loss. That all depends on the vehicle of course. If I use my bike, I’ll probably just about break even. By the time we consider fuel and wear and tear along with the increased insurance premiums, it is not going to be enough to then justify extra tax. If I use my own vehicle and get taxed on it, I’ll be making a significant loss. So how the fucking self satisfied shits in Westminster can come to the conclusion that ranking up the miles on our own vehicles constitutes a taxable benefit is beyond comprehension.

Think about it, we have to pay an increased insurance premium for business use that may – depending on the risk and type of vehicle – be substantial, then we have the depreciation caused by the extra mileage, along with the  increased cost of servicing associated with the higher mileage, not to mention tyres, fuel, oil and other consumables. The justification is, once more, fucking “environmental” and all that carbon footprint bollocks.

It floated the idea at a recent meeting of firms providing company car fleets. It was suggested that the tax threshold be reduced or linked to the environmental friendliness of a car.

The 40p allowance would be slashed to 25p for those using cars with CO2 emissions above 185 grams per kilometre. So anybody driving 10,000 miles for work could be £1,500 a year worse off.

The only carbon footprint I want to talk about is the one used to stamp MPs’ faces into the ground. Oh, and did anyone notice a little vested interest there? After all, if people use their own vehicles, then their employers won’t have to buy all those shiny new cars from company car fleet suppliers, will they? God help us when vested interests and government agencies get into bed with each other; you just know the little guy is going to get shafted.

The other story that caught my eye was the one about cyclists and changes to the Highway Code:

Cyclists who fail to use lanes provided for them could face prosecution as a result of changes to the Highway Code, it became clear last night.

While this may seem to be reasonable at first glance, there is a hidden depth to the issue. Separate cycle lanes make sense as they are clear of traffic and much safer to use. However as has been pointed out in an earlier discussion, they may not always be easy to find.

Often I guess it would be through a lack of local knowledge. In a strange area you can’t really do much but follow the signs and the signs are always set up for cars. Hence people end up on virtual motorways despite there being a superb parallel alternative. Near here it’s the A27, across Devon the A30, both have the “old roads” running near by but unless he’d studied the ordnance survey map carefully a stranger just wouldn’t know.

Then there’s the little matter of those lanes that are situated in city centres. Have you noticed that they appear and disappear at the will of the road planners without any consideration for the poor sod trying to navigate them? One minute you are on a cycle lane, the next you are dicing with the traffic turning left on the approach to a busy roundabout.

The current wording planned for the new Highway Code is sufficiently ambiguous that it could lead to prosecutions for “inconsiderate cycling” under the 1998 Road Traffic Act.

According to the present version of the Highway Code, cycle routes should be used “when practicable”. A revised version said they should be used “where they are provided”. Then, in a concession to cyclists, the latest version was changed to instruct them to use lanes “wherever possible”.

Although the changes in wording appear very subtle, their legal impact could be considerable, according to CTC, formerly known as the Cyclists’ Touring Club.

Failing to stop at red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings, bumping into pedestrians on pavements and cutting across other road users’ paths, forcing them to take avoiding action is, indeed, “inconsiderate cycling”, but I’ll be damned if failing to use a dangerous cycle lane is.