Would you prefer car tax to be based on how far you drive, and which roads you take?
This is a second page of your comments.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
It's just another way of taxing by the back door; why else would they be doing it other than to increase revenue? I have no choice but to drive because public transport is so bad! I'm sure fuel duty won't come down much and the extra cash won't go on public transport. It will end up costing twice as much and we won't see any benefit. It's time to get real and stop hammering motorists.
Thom, Horsforth, Leeds
I am lucky enough to be able to cycle to work because I work only 7 miles from where I live, my route is 50% off road and my employer provides a secure bike shed and showers. I am sure there are a number of people in a similar situation to me, so hopefully this will encourage them to use alternatives such as mine or public transport. However the main responsibility lies with the employer and employee. Living closer to where you work is essential for any green scheme to cut congestion - making it expensive to drive is only a fraction of the solution but at least it's a step in the right direction.
I'm horrified by this. Don't we have a right for the government not to snoop on our location every moment of the day? There is also the problem that this will punish drivers of smaller, more efficient cars, as you will pay the same regardless of whether you get 50 mpg or 5 mpg. That's just stupid.
Tom Mason, Bristol, UK
If the government was really committed to relieving congestion, they would present an alternative. How about cheaper train fares, or even ones that run on time? Instead we get the worst trains in Europe and now we're getting punished for driving the cars we earned the right to drive ourselves. This isn't about presenting incentives, it's about punishing the public.
Robert, St Neots
Rather than charging per mile it should charge per journey in many cases. Most Congestion is caused by many cars doing short journeys of a type that can realistically be avoided using a cycle, or by walking.
Frank Leonhardt, London
Draconian springs to mind! So to visit my elderly mother in Liverpool would cost me up to £200! Do these people think that we still live in the age of rural society when the most a person would travel in their lifetime would be 20 miles to the next village? This 2 Jags government needs to wake up.
Remove the car tax and petrol duty, and charge those who use the roads the most. The only problem is we will all pay through higher prices for goods as the suppliers will cover their extra transport charges. Also the money that the Government receives from tolls will not be spent on improving the environment or public transport.
Adie Fletcher, Cheltenham, UK
This is typical politician's nonsense. It does not address the car share/ green vehicle issue, nor does it deal with foreign tourists/ lorries etc. Public transport has to be made better and cheaper so that it becomes the first choice for travel.
Clive Houghton, Ramsgate, Kent
Fundamentally this is a great idea, assuming they come up with a way to address the problem of fuel efficient cars being charged the same as inefficient ones. I do however have a couple of concerns. There are big civil liberties concerns in that the 'black boxes' could easily record where we are at what time which should be resisted. Also, this would be a huge technical challenge and lets face it, successive governments have a dreadful record with implementing technology solutions.
Paul Johnson, Seoul, South Korea (UK Expat)
And who is going to foot the bill for having GPS installed in every vehicle in the UK? Who is going to pay the annual subscription fee for these services? And has anybody considered the effect this would have on the transport industry? Truck drivers cover hundreds of motorway miles per day. Another hare-brained scheme from the labour "government".
Rich, South Derbyshire, UK
Brilliant idea and long overdue. Many of us have been asking for this a long time and the government are not going far enough.
David Williams, Walton-on-Thames UK
People have been opposed to ID cards on the grounds of civil liberties and I thought they were exaggerated. With road pricing via satellite tracking the government will effectively know the location, travel habits and lifestyles of every single driver in the UK. Now that is what I call an infringement of civil liberties...
Elliot Stapleton, Manchester
This is an excellent idea which will make motorists directly aware of the costs of their decision to drive. I hope it has a taxi type meter on the dashboard displaying the cost of the journey. Only when people realise the cost of a running a car, can we see some significant movement to alternative forms of transport.
Gavin, Hull, UK
This sounds like just another money making scheme from the government
It seems fairer but soon people will be aware on when it's cheaper to travel and will only journey at those times if possible. If everyone does this then new rush hours will be created in the "cheap" times? I can see people continuously changing their journey times to avoid paying high charges and then the government will end up levying a flat rate charge for anyone, anywhere! I'm also concerned about the privacy factor. I don't want the government to know where I've been. It's an invasion of privacy and is worse than ID cards.
Chris Rowland, St Albans, UK
Why do the government insist on punitive measures all the time. For any long-term plan to succeed in weaning drivers away from their cars then there has to be an alternative means of transport. Public transport has had years of neglect, is run to purely make a profit and currently is not up to the job.
Ed, Soham, Cambs
I think we can safely say, that this would lead to the complete economic collapse of the UK, as all major commuters would be forced to quit their jobs or move, probably splitting up families.
Sam Martin, Milton Keynes, England
Fantastic Idea! Does this mean that public transport will be that good that me and thousands of others can get the train to work? I travel 1.5 hours in a car to do 80 miles as the equivalent train journey is nearly 3 hours. If you want drivers off the road then you need to provide a viable alternative...
Ed, Milton Keynes
People will continue to use their cars, even if costs spiral out of control. Public transport is simply not up to standard. Where's the alternative?
Peter Davis, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
It seems very complicated and expensive what with putting boxes in people's cars. I suspect people will get round that one. Why not abolish the car tax and put all of the tax on the fuel, then everybody who uses it would have to pay and surely it would be more difficult to get out of paying it.
Michael Prudhoe, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
I have an 85 mile round trip to work 5 days per week, not only am I paying for diesel (I had to change from a petrol vehicle because of the cost), I also have to pay £2.30 per day to use the Mersey Tunnel, another unfair cost, I am now going to be charged to use the roads I travel on! Should this happen I would have to give up my job as I won't be able to afford to get to work. Ludicrous.
Justin Waddington, Southport
I'm in favour. Road tax is unfair on low mileage drivers. Gas guzzlers are already paying through increased cost per mile. Simply increasing fuel-duty will not target busy roads. I'd go further and have time variable charging so that rush hour miles cost more. The whole point is to use charging to adjust behaviour.
Kevin, West Midlands
What are businesses going to do when employees start leaving in droves when they realise that they will only make £10 a day once all the charges have been paid for travelling to and from work. Surely the government must realise that nobody sits in congested traffic for fun! It's normally because we have to get to work to pay our taxes to keep the country going. Its pure lunacy.
Marc Murphy, Manchester
The scheme will never pass public approval for the simple fact that the vast majority of the population need to commute out of necessity. Public transport in this country is horrendous compared with the rest of Europe and is highly unreliable. I live in Wales and not only travel 12,000 miles to work each year but on top of that I need to travel within my constituency to visit clients. That puts my mileage in the region of 18,000 per year and even at 2p per mile that's £200 more than my road tax.
Rhian, Llandudno, N.Wales
Once again - this would be a great idea if we had the infrastructure to support feasible and inexpensive public transport, and the extra revenue was actually reinvested into the transport infrastructure. However, given the sorry state of UK roads and public transport, I fear this will be used to plug the gap in Gordon Brown's spending plans.
Ashley Kelty, Edinburgh, UK
If the aim of the change is to modify behaviour then I can see the merit in it. What concerns me is what the money raised is then used for. Given that I believe the revenue raised through road tax and fuel duty exceeds the amount spent on road maintenance and development I would resent an additional stealth tax. If it is a hypothocated tax and used to create an integrated transport system then I might support it. However I don't believe this will ever be the case whatever stripe of party is in power.
Steve Williams, Leicester, Leicestershire
Taxing based on usage is a good idea, but with this scheme my 60mpg Smart car would be paying the same per mile as a 6mpg Humvee. I say pile the whole lot on petrol and put tolls on the busy roads.
And who is going to pay for these satellites and black boxes?
Simon, Bedford, UK
It takes me 20 mins to drive to work each day. The last time my car was in the garage it took me almost 2 hours one-way using public transport. So much for integrated transport. In Preston the main bus station is a mile from the train station!
Chris Byers, Preston, UK
Same principle as 'pay-and-go' mobile phones, telephone bills, gas and electricity. Why not roads?
Tim Jones, Oxford UK
There seems to be a huge blind spot in this government when it comes to the application of 'technology' to difficult problems. The biometrics and database interlinking imagined for the ID card scheme, and now the GPS tracking envisaged for road pricing, it's all incredibly bleeding edge and not feasible on the scale suggested. One only has to think of the practicalities of GPS in built-up areas or where two roads run closely parallel. I'd like to think that the intentions are honourable in each case, but let's face it, neither of these things can be done successfully.
Duncan Hothersall, Edinburgh
Hey why not just put microchips in people like they do in dogs, then link it up to a national CCTV system, and the electronic speed camera network, so when we get in our cars then they can calculate where we started, how fast we're going, and where we end up! Add it to the monitoring of ISP's and the statistics fed back by spyware, not to mention the perpetual war on 'terror', and hey presto, George Orwell's 1984 fantasy comes true!
Rob Scott, Liverpool, UK
"Road Tax" doesn't exist of course. It's Vehicle Excise Duty, and it varies according to type of vehicle; so powerful vehicles already pay a lot, "green" vehicles (yeah, sure) pay less and bicycles pay nothing. All retain the same rights as road users.
The government is trying to deal with congestion, not environmental impact or raising extra revenue. The suggestion is to abolish VED and reduce fuel tax. If you drive less, you pay less, only paying more if you use the most congested roads at the busiest times. Driving is a luxury.
The concern over the civil liberty issue of tracking journeys (or the fear of instant speeding fines more like) is something of a horse already bolted situation as there are endless ways of tracking an individual's movement already in place.
Dan Smith, Manchester, England
Great! Now not only can I not afford to buy a house near to where I work because of house prices, I will no longer be able to afford to drive to work! Yet another idea to suck the last penny out of the motorist!
Lee Bassom, Swindon, Wiltshire, UK
I would pay this toll once only, when on the way to the airport to emigrate.
Are the Government out of their minds....a round trip to see my wife's relatives in Cardiff would cost £300.00 using the M4 in peak times under this proposal - car tax is only £170 for a year how is scrapping that going to offset this extra cost. On the other hand it may deter my mother in law from coming to stay so it does have its plus side!
Paul A, Reading, UK
Great, all the trucks delivering our food will have to pay 1.34 a mile. Say a truck does 50,000 miles a year on UK roads, mainly motorways, that's in the ballpark of 50k road tax per truck! Expect prices of goods to soar through the roof. What on earth is wrong with tax on petrol? It penalises the vehicles which are less efficient and you pay as you go. It's the perfect scheme already.
Rob O'Connor, London, UK
The principle of charging is correct but....I drive a small, green car and weather permitting ride a motorcycle. Charging should be banded on vehicle emissions and size. All two-wheelers should be exempt from charges as they generally are fuel efficient and do not cause congestion. If is a fair system with 2 litre plus four-wheelers being charged premium rates then I would support the policy.
Roland Powell, Barnsley, UK
Firstly this has IT fiasco written large on it. The system would be comparable in size to the £18bn ID card scheme. Secondly this scheme will mean that someone with a gas-guzzler will pay the same as a small more efficient vehicle. This is just a way to increase tax revenue.
Simon N, Oxford
A good idea in theory - but only if there are alternative methods of public transport available. I work 30 miles away, and it is currently impossible for me to get to work by public transport and arrive on time. I know of no-one locally with whom I could car share. I have to travel at peak times, on motorways, and the journey is not a hassle - the roads are okay in the direction I travel. With a charge of £1.34 per mile, I would not be able to afford to go to work. This is hardly progress!
This suggestion should only form a part of an overall strategy. The first job Mr Darling should undertake is to finish the motorway network we have all paid for several times over. It's only third built so far.
Chris Cumber, Torquay, Devon
Surely the fairest way would be to replace road tax with an increased duty on petrol. This would be easier to police and mean that you would pay in accordance with your use of your vehicle. Drivers with fuel efficient vehicles or doing low mileages would pay less than owners of gas guzzlers or those doing high mileages. It would avoid the need for a black box in each vehicle and would apply equally to foreign cars or lorries using the UK roads. The only thing it wouldn't do would be deter drivers from using congested roads.
Tony Clark, Tarleton UK
I'm for it, if they can make it unattractive for people to drive their kids to school in the morning, without taxing the rest of us off the road, who have to drive to work. The roads in south west London have been pretty quiet in the last week due to schools' half-term. My 20 mile drive to work has taken only 30 mins, instead of the usual hour.
Matthew Williams, South London, UK
Where is the integrated transport policy? The school run exists because getting the school bus is tied up in red tape. Motorways clog because slip roads cannot cope. Parking at a train station costs £3.50+ per day. Buses to the station are rare. Most transport links run north/south, so how do you travel across the country? Everything is so tied up in red tape that all the 'great' proposals never work.
Alan, Tring, Herts
In the time it will take to make this idea reality, I'm sure that the UK public will be more than happy to vote in a different party. Under this extra taxation no one will be able to move out of their home towns for fear of the cost - not to mention the extra traffic on roads that the motorways were created to take traffic away from in the first place. Perhaps Labour are regretting winning the recent election already.
Diane, Biggleswade, Beds
I regularly drive from London to the North-West and back. If I went by public transport at the same times of day it would cost three to four times more and take twice as long. People use their cars because they believe they have no reasonable alternative. Until it can be demonstrated that public transport is reliable, efficient and convenient, this measure will just tax the poor off the roads. Why not think of some measures to get more freight taken by rail, thereby freeing up some room on our roads?
Howard, London, UK
If they know where you are and how far you have travelled, it's only a small step to calculating speeds. This is big brother attempting to issue speeding tickets automatically, again further eroding the freedom and privacy. Why not spend the money on improving the transport of the country.
Malcolm, Haslemere, Surrey
This looks like a perk for the wealthy, forcing lower paid motorists to use less economic roads, thus allowing the better off to have the benefit of motorway usage.
Harry, Liverpool, UK
The British government should extend tolls on motorway and change the A36 into a motorway. Compared to France, a larger country, every motorway doubles an A-road. Instead, British governments have replaced A-road by M-road. Unfortunately, it is too late now to displace urban areas.
Pierrick Sourisseau, Nantes, France
Where was this in the election manifesto?
I live in London and my mother lives in Scotland. The only practical way to get them up there to see her is by road. It a journey of some 1000 miles return, even if taxed at 10 p per mile that's £100 I would have to find just to get to see her. This is an inflationary measure and will force motorists back onto rural roads, making them impassable. The reality is that this a failure of the Government's transport policy and a failure to address the real issues about transport use for work and the distances most people have to cover. The Government should resign.
Tony, Welling Kent
I think that the idea of pay as you go is not a good idea. For one thing it will affect the disabled person, like myself, that relies on their car for transport. It is a shame that the vulnerable of this world will suffer once again. People have fought in wars for freedom (where is it now?)
DB Newsome, Lancashire
As a sales rep I cover approx 35,000 mile per year, at all times of the day. If we, as a company had to pay an average of 50p per mile it could cost £17,500. This would be completely untenable for our small business without suitable public transport to allow me to do 3 visit to customers per day with distances of up to 100 miles between them. allied to the potential 48 hour working week, we may as well shut up shop now.
Anthony Krys, Birmingham, England
A box in your vehicle letting the Government know everywhere you go!! If the British people stand for that I'm moving to France!
Steve Connor, Bournemouth UK
They think they can track literally millions of cars using satellite technology? I wonder which new labour donor will be making millions out of this coming fiasco. They'll spend a fortune, to find that it is impossible to make it work properly without spending a further fortune and then when it still not working properly it will all be scrapped. Where have we seen this all before?
First ID cards and now the government want to be able to track every journey we make!
This proposal is obscene. It would be far more expensive than the current fuel tax, which is a much better way to tax high energy use. With a fuel tax you can at least reduce its effect by driving more efficiently.
Paul Morrish, England
All duty should be on fuel. It is easy to collect, the system is in place and nobody can get away without paying. Duty needs to be increased drastically on vehicle fuel and parking charges in towns. Why should there be free or cheap parking for people too lazy to walk, cycle or use bus services and destroy the urban environment. This could all be done NOW if there was the political and social will to do so.
Edward Brewster, Grazalema, Spain
So, someone in a gas guzzling 4.5 litre SUV will pay the same as someone in a Nissan Micra doing 40 miles to the gallon? What a great environmental initiative that is!!
Always a stick and, sadly, no carrot. People in this country regard public transport as a dirty necessity for students, the poor and the old. Most other European countries have wonderful, cheap and clean public transport. If public transport were MUCH better in this country then you would see a genuine reduction in traffic. All they are going to do with this new proposal is make people poorer and more miserable as they drive in their comfortable cars knowing that the public transport alternative is even worse !
Shane King, Farnham, Surrey
A better way of reducing congestion would be to limit each household to having one car. The only way you may be allowed to have more than one car on your drive is if you have a company car and require it as part of your business, or you wish to pay a substantial fee of a few thousand to have an extra car for your household and explain why you actually need another one. This should in turn help increase car sharing and public transport use, and reduce congestion.
Tim Mayo, Bristol
Sounds great to me. I don't use the car often to commute.
As long as I travel out of hours, I can use my pointlessly over powered car to buzz around the countryside roads for virtually nothing. Given I have to use (a lot of) super unleaded petrol, this might actually work in my favour... For once, good thinking!
Rick Lawson, Kings Lynn
It is remarkable that when discussing the issues of congestion it is almost always assumed that people use their cars out of carelessness or joy of driving. What is never mentioned is that this country has probably Europe's most expensive and least efficient public transportation system and people have to use their cars not out of choice but out of necessity. Forcing people out of the road makes only sense if they have an alternative - otherwise it only penalises the poor and reserves the roads for the rich.
Dr. Thomas Bak, Cambridge, UK
This is a pretty neat stealth tax. No more paying about £160 for annual road tax. As the average mileage per year is 12,000, the absolute minimum payable (at 2p per mile) will be £240. But as some people are going to travel in peak times that will rise significantly, possibly well over £300. Very clever!
David Bolton, London, UK
The majority of my working hours are out of peak time, however, I often travel in the opposite direction to the peak traffic. Does this mean that I will be charged the full amount for the road even though I'm not adding to the congestion? I live 14 miles away from my place of work and I am usually in very early in the morning. The bus system from where I live is shocking, one every hour and the earliest I could get in is 10 o'clock. Before they think of charging the motorists even more, they should invest more heavily into the abysmal public transport system. I wouldn't be surprised if all of the members of the government become exempt from this new tax.
Phil, Liverpool, UK
Why not just add an additional tax to petrol? The more miles or thirsty your car, the more you will pay. This is the fairest way. If you choose to live in the city you pay for being stuck in heavy traffic or if you use motorways at peak times, then you pay the extra in fuel costs.
Mike, Farnborough, Hants
So, transponders to tell the government how far we have gone (road tax), how fast we go there (easy speeding fines) and where we are (who needs ID cards?)
This manages to kill not two, but three of the government's favourite birds with one stone. Just so long as they don't also kill the golden goose!
In principle I think its reasonable, but the charges have to be balanced very carefully. £1.34 sounds totally OTT for motorways in my opinion. The contributor who suggests increasing petrol prices has a reasonable idea. I would also like to see a maximum number of cars per household introduced too but this would no doubt meet pressure from the motor industry. My main worry on pricing this scheme however would be if they leave it to local councils to decide charges. Tunbridge Wells Council, and I'm sure they are not alone, have a terrible reputation for constantly taxing car owners and householders to further finance their obviously failing operation. Most of our "gridlock" is largely down to our local council's totally incompetent policies on traffic control anyway!
Ian S, Tunbridge Wells, UK
How about having higher charges for people who use roads where there is a viable public transport alternative. This would be much fairer as for some journeys there really is no choice.
This seems to have been a long time coming. Pay as you use is really the only sensible way of the government attaining equitable revenues from road users. Whilst this could effectively create another business tax, it will make companies think twice about where they locate their operations and the flexibility they offer their employees in terms of working hours and home working.
Paul , Milton Keynes, Bucks
£93 for a piece of plastic (identity cards) - how much is a black box going to cost us?
Daniel, Devon, UK
The reason we have a peak time is because people are going to work. These are the people who prop up our current tax system. By this scheme we'll charge the most for the journeys hardest to avoid.
Dave J, London, UK
Where exactly was this proposal in the Labour manifesto? We are one month after a general election and yet already the government are producing policies out of nowhere that we were not allowed to vote on.
Richard Coe, London, UK
It is vital that such tax revenue goes on public transport and is not just passed to the Treasury to support wider government spending. The London model of congestion charging and improvements to buses, DLR etc is a great success. We could learn from the Swiss model where there's effective transport, and even though car ownership is high - cars are used much less.
Mark Hopwood, Barnet, Herts
I live in Leeds, where this stupid pilot is going to go ahead. Leeds is one of the least congested major cities in the country, and no government scheme is ever introduced unless it is going to take more money off you
The people that will get hit the hardest are salesmen, whilst parents who do the school run and congest the road will pay less, that's not right. Plus those who aren't taxed now aren't going to have a box fitted anyway.
David Quinton, Wigan, England
The proposed charging structure is far too highly priced. I live 30 miles away from my place of work and travel as part of my job. I average over 18,000 miles a year just getting to work. This could mean that I have to pay up to £24,000 per year in road tax. It wouldn't be worth my while going to work.
Martin Finch, Gloucester
This is another Labour gimmick to get more money off us. Why don't you just charge people who drive those gas guzzling Chelsea tractors instead?!
Sam Pritchard, Newbury, Berkshire
Congestion is a problem and a pay-as-you-go system might make people think before they jump in the car to go only a short distance. However, our lifestyle now distances home from work, necessitating travel. And for those of us in rural areas, a car is essential.
Jonathan McKay, Huddersfield, UK
Another useless idea from the government. If they want to get people of the roads how about rationing petrol? Without fuel you can't drive.
Before they do this, there needs to be truly massive investment in public transport which, even in many provincial cities is shockingly bad. However, this is as good an idea as any I have seen. We probably need to reduce our car usage by about two thirds on average and pricing us off the roads is one way.
Anon, Clevedon, Somerset, UK
Of course, there will be a few people who will benefit from this, but the majority of us will be bled dry and no longer be able to drive. The government aren't really being very sneaky here, in fleecing us. Surely they could have come up with a better idea to scam more money out of us. As for the traffic problem, it's propaganda. Rush hour traffic is bad, but we expect it to be. As for the "L.A. gridlock".. haha! That made me chuckle! The difference is that America have built better road systems to what we have, which are designed for heavy traffic flow. Come on Alistair Darling, surely you can come up with something more practical and emm... FAIR to the British road user?
Joanne Milne, Hitchin. England.
They are just thinking ahead to when cars run on electricity, which will be much harder to tax than petrol.
Duncan Crawford, Congresbury
All that needs to be done is for another penny to be put on petrol and then the tax disc can be scrapped and then those who drive the most pay more. So simple. But now we're talking about surveillance and has other consequences as well. What is it with this government and this obsession on spying on us? What's their real intention?
Malcolm Smith, Porthmadog, Wales
An excellent idea. At the moment road users do not pay the true cost to society and the environment. Of course this scheme would be better for the environment. It would also reduce congestion and injuries and deaths due to traffic accidents and would increase the population's health and fitness. Now what we need is for somebody to tax aircraft fuel!
David Curtis, London, UK
You can guarantee that if the government brings this scheme it will cost everyone more money. Come on open your eyes to another stealth tax!
Selvyn Wright, Birmingham, UK
Schemes to reduce congestion are all well and good but there has to be a travel alternative. Public transport is a joke in the UK - there is no such thing as an integrated transport systems for most of the country, especially rural areas. If the government sorted out public transport, they might find that it was unnecessary to spend money policing this sort of nonsense.
Mark Willcox, Ness, Cheshire
The government realise that motorists will continue to pay whatever tax/charges are thrown at us, because public transport is so inflexible, outdated and unpleasant to use. Like the taxation on petrol, I'd wager not all of the 'pay as you go' fees are returned to fund a better road network.
Pete, Cardiff, UK
I'm supportive of this for environmental reasons. It seems not dissimilar in effect to increasing tax on petrol, but I think this has the advantage that it is more likely to make people think about the cost of a journey before undertaking it. It will also facilitate and encourage comparisons with public transport alternatives. Another advantage is that government can choose to charge different vehicles different tariffs (according to their environmental costs) or to charge freight differently to private motorists if that's felt to be in the best interests of the economy.
Giles, Hitchin, UK
I don't believe it will be a replacement for the existing road fund licence and fuel duty, it will be a supplementary tax. When it comes to the crunch the government will claim too much difficulty in letting go of the other taxes, e.g. the way the tax disc provides evidence of insurance / MOT, and the need to prevent other fuel users, e.g. jet skis, from getting a free ride. Actually, fuel taxes are a better way of handling environmental concerns than road charges - with road charges a 10 mpg Tonka toy will pay the same as 60 mpg supermini - absurd.
Simon, Ely, UK
If the government was committed to improving the environment, why did they remove the grant for hybrid cars such as Honda & Toyota? These cars are the cleanest around their emissions meet the highest standards. These cars meet the highest standards but under the new plan people who own these vehicles would be paying twice, ie in the cost of purchase and the pay as you go charges. Will the government give them an exemption like they do with the congestion charge?
Bill Eastwood, London
We live 1 mile from any village & 8 miles from Bury St Edmunds. Having a car is essential. In addition, I travel 150 miles per day to work & back in London. The nearest practical train station for me to take public transport is 25 miles away. My wife works 25 miles away in Thetford and our child's school is 7 miles away. Taken at just 2p per mile all over, our road "tax" would be over £1000 & if that amount was to be higher, then it would severely affect where I am able to work. This tax if implemented without thought, penalises those that live out-side of major conurbations with a public transport infrastructure. And since when has increased road/vehicle tax meant better public transport? Increase duty on fuel, promoting efficient engines.
James Holt, Nr Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Satellite based car tracking, national surveillance camera systems, ¿congestion charge' cameras, biometric ID cards.....it's enough to make the Stasi drool.
Andy, London, UK
I'm a driving instructor. The new proposals would cripple my career. The government need to stop paying for wars and start paying for better public transport to reduce traffic and pollution.
Katie, Bordon, Hants
Yet again the government comes up with another scheme to fleece UK taxpayers. I used to live in Essex and take the A13 into London every day - 2 hours to travel 25 miles! I imagine nothing has changed. I now live in LA and I can tell you the myth of "LA-style gridlock" is just that. Driving here is a pleasure and you don't have to pay to do it either.
Paul Anderson, Los Angeles, California
Tax on fuel ought to be the fairest & simplest way of taxing use. Unfortunately, successive governments have milked dry the cash-cow of the motorist. This Government seem to think that expensive & complicated technology is needed to solve any problem, no doubt encouraged by those selling it. Also I have no doubt that if such a scheme is introduced then gadgets, or tinfoil, will soon appear to block the signals. There is a simple, cheap & beneficial answer to congestion, make it harder to get and easier to lose a driving license. Improve the standard of drivers & vehicle numbers will fall along with accident rates. I very much doubt that any government would do it as it's a sure fire vote loser.
Baz, London, UK
One of the main problems of using taxation to combat or discourage the use of the car is that it is unfair to members of society lower down the social scale. The more money you have the less these types of measures will bother you. Where if you have a lower income and travel to work say, on the motorway to the next town, so you can live in a area of lower cost housing the rise in car transportation costs through any form will force you into an impossible decision of pay the increase in car costs or move to more expensive and badly organised public transport. Any increase in transportation cost for the lower paid means less money for home costs, food costs, pension costs. We need to encourage all sections of the UK to stop using the car by providing better public transport now and not just make it so the rich can ignore the problems we all face.
Stuart Bainbridge, Darwen, United Kingdom
Great, I only do on average 50 miles a week so £1.00 a week suits me. A lot cheaper than road fund licence but how will this be measured with the supposed removal of duty on petrol will never work. Another pie in the sky scheme by the government.
Dave Dodd, Liverpool
Increasing the cost of driving is all very well but there needs to be a viable alternative. To travel home from university costs me over £80 by train and it is always late. Driving is quicker and costs about £50. There must be a viable alternative before this sort of scheme can be introduced.
Matthew Pringle, Durham, UK