This nonsense is just a ploy to hit motorists

Thursday 26th November 2009, 3:00PM GMT.

From Brian Rondel, former chief officer, Motor Traffic Department.
I refer to Senator Terry Le Main’s proposal of a new road tax.

Oh dear, the poor old motorist. What a to-do. Petrol allegedly rising to £5 a gallon and the petrol attendant threatening to tell the police that your tyres need replacing.

Now Terry wants to introduce an environmental tax which he thinks will make a real difference. This is not an environmental tax; it’s a ploy to hit the motorist to subsidise the Hoppa bus and to introduce new apparatus similar to that on the Trim Trail designed to make walkers even fitter. What utter nonsense.

Well over 20 years ago we introduced emission testing on large commercial vehicles, buses and coaches because at that time there was a real problem. To the best of my knowledge annual testing of these types of vehicle is still carried out by DVS.

However, engine design and exhaust emission has come on in leaps and bounds, and bears little relation to the smokers of yesterday. The larger private vehicles referred to as gas guzzlers that I see appear to be mostly new and their emission meets the highest standard.

If there needs to be a form of emission testing, I would suggest that the motor traders include it as part of annual servicing.

I am sure that the insurance companies would not welcome the additional work collecting the tax on behalf of the States. I suspect that the additional costs would be passed on to our insurance premium.

In 1994 the Defence Committee discarded the annual registration scheme and introduced a new system. To equal the amount of revenue the States would have received on tax, the cost of fuel was increased by so many pence per gallon. This system was looked upon by the committee as fair – the more fuel you burn the more you pay.

I am fed up with people telling me I should walk or cycle. I shall leave that to Terry and the Wimberleys of Wobbledown.

1
Colin

November 26, 2009 at 4:03 pm

I suspect that this proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with taxing the motorist to promote the Hoppa Bus.
I would guess that it is a way of diverting peoples minds away from his ‘not fit for purpose’
housing department and an attempt to improve his standing for re-election.
He won’t be the only one crawling out of the woodwork as next year progresses.

Report abuse
2
able1

November 26, 2009 at 4:07 pm

At last, a person with intimate knowledge of the problems making sensible comments.

It’s a crying shame that the States are unable, or unwilling to get more involvement from such experienced people especially in areas where their own expertise is severely lacking.

It would be helpful if Senator Le Main and Deputy Wimberley were to take notice of such comments but I expect they are too full of their own importance to do so, a not uncommon vice in the States Chamber.

Report abuse
3
PJG

November 26, 2009 at 4:10 pm

Brian, only oversize P30 and PSV vehicles are tested once per year. Not the majority of HGVs, and especially not the older farm trucks.
I think a MOT form of testing for “all” vehicles would be a better idea, for road safety as well as emissions
However I do agree with you.
“the more fuel you burn the more you pay”
and the more you leak onto the road the more you pay.

Report abuse
4
Warren J

November 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm

Thnak you Mr Rondel for your factual comments based on your time as former Chief Officer of Motor Traffic. You will remember well the dirty diesel powered busses and trucks on our roads along with the cars of the 1960′s 70′s and 80′s with their tendancy to rust and with worn carburettors and missadjusted ignition, were also responsible for much air pollution.

However, petrol powered cars manufactured since 1992 are fitted with catalytic converters and have electronic fuel injection and engine manamgement systems. These systems are very reliable, don’t go out of tune and reduce pollution significantly. (The car basically either works efficiently or not at all!) In addition, much imporved rust proofing means that cars don’t rust like the Fiats of the 1970′s, as a result of which, a 10 year old car today is probably in far superior condition mechanically and bodily to a 3 year old car in the 1970′s ! Thus the reference by Peter Tabb, representing the Motor Trade, to the number of 10 year old + cars on the islands roads being a danger and significnat cause of air pollution is plainly untrue. Also the continual claims that modern cars are killing the planet are also false, it just being an excuse to raise revenue.

Report abuse
5
DH

November 26, 2009 at 9:51 pm

Re comment of PJG (no.3 above)
No we do not need an MOT … The UK is a prime example where I’ve seen vehicles with current
MOT’s and frankly they should be scrapped.

For those of us who remember taxing our cars every year and have also done the sums working out per annum what we pay now ….we pay, make no mistake !!

I agree with Brian Rondel .

Oh, by the way Terry, saw you recently in your E Type Jaguar … hhmmm, hardly environmentally friendly

Report abuse
6
Dan

November 30, 2009 at 1:36 pm

I only do about 1,500 miles a year (if that). Any “Enviromental Tax” will more than double the cost of the very little motoring I do. Just another tax con.

Report abuse
7
Leah Holmes

December 2, 2009 at 2:03 pm

There are people on this island that collect cars because they appreciate the beauty of the engineering and design. Still, one person can only drive one car at any one time. So all this tax does is penalise people just for the heck of it. And if people are pushed to only owning one car then we’ll cause further injury to the motor industry also.

If we actually care about the environment (as the States claim) we’ll tax use and ONLY use! And even then we’ll make sensible provisions for those that have to use a car (work, disability etc).

Can we get real and stop trying to raise more money for the States to throw in a fire? That’s all that will happen. WE’ll provide the money and the States will throw it away.

Report abuse