Staney Hill Track, Hoofields to Clickamin

[JustMe]

I am fairly certain that although the track may be a right of way for walkers and perhaps also for cyclists and horse riders the council do have the authority to decide (on our behalf) that the route is not suitable for motor vehicles and to ban such use. Possible exception to that would be crofters with grazing rights on either side of the track.

[Vdub]

I am fairly certain that the councils legal team will have advised them that if it has been used by the public for 20 years without objection that they cant close it and I would be surprised if a sign would suffice as anybody with a gripe and no authority could have stuck it up.

Ever wondered why the road to St ninians isles was reopened again.

[EM]

Proportionately of course a car does about the same damage to the road each time it passes as 10,000 cyclists. A 40T truck does about the same damage as 10,000 cars. I'm not sure where a pedestrian comes on the scale.....

Where do these figures come from? I'm not disputing them, but they seem fairly arbitrary round numbers.

[Carlos]

Proportionately of course a car does about the same damage to the road each time it passes as 10,000 cyclists. A 40T truck does about the same damage as 10,000 cars. I'm not sure where a pedestrian comes on the scale.....

Where do these figures come from? I'm not disputing them, but they seem fairly arbitrary round numbers.

Yeah, pretty much rounded all round and about

The first study was carried out in the US by physically driving trucks round and round a test circuit and seeing how much damages was caused. That found damage was proportional to the axle loading to the 4th power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHO_Road_Test

 

4th power gives you quite steep curves , and more recent research says that it's maybe not as simple as that, but the 1 truck = 10,000 cars = 10,000 x 10,000 bikes gives an idea of the sort of magnitudes involved.

[EM]

...more recent research says that it's maybe not as simple as that,...

In effect, those numbers are actually saying that cars cause almost no damage and bicycles cause no measurable damage whatsoever to conventional roads. Quite believable and interesting. This clearly applies to roads constructed from bitmac or concrete. With unsurfaced and archaically macadamised roads it will be quite different, though the relative magnitudes presumably similar.

[MaxFusion]

Roads in Britain are designed for the number of standard axles using them in a certain time period.

A standard axel is counted as a truck axle although I can't remember the load bearing off hand.

 

 

As a pedestrian and cyclist I would have no problem if I had to have a Band A VED disk, but as a motorist I would not like to have to pay the extra on the car's VED that would be needed to cover the admin and enforcement of that zero cost bit of paper.......

 

And therin lies my point, motorists pay proportionally more tax for the upkeep of the roads they use whereas pedestrians etc do not.

 

The road tax may have been phased out by 1937, but the Road fund wasn't phased out till 1955 it seems.....but the tax on emissions wasn't replacing it until about 1999 when they started charging based on engine size! The Motorist has always had to fund the pedestrians nice smooth footpaths at the side of roads.

[Carlos]

Roads in Britain are designed for the number of standard axles using them in a certain time period.

A standard axel is counted as a truck axle although I can't remember the load bearing off hand.

And a road designed to carry that loading for a resonable lifespan is almost unaffected by cars, never mind cyclists or pedestrians.

 

And therin lies my point, motorists pay proportionally more tax for the upkeep of the roads they use whereas pedestrians etc do not.

Well, a cyclist, horse rider or pedestrian already pays the same as a car driver with a Band A car, and 99% of drivers are also pedestrians if only for getting to and from the car, but should there be a direct link between what is paid and the dammage the use causes? Or per mile traveled? Or a fixed poll tax per person regardless of how they use roads?

[MaxFusion]

Cars maybe don't damage the structure of the road as such, but unfortunately here in Shetland the surface tends to spall and they have to surface dress the roads. I'm sure you've noticed how it strips off...it's not just trucks that do that I'm afraid.

Can you find that on wikipedia?

 

I think you'll also find that drivers of new cars up to band D don't pay tax for the first year.

 

One argument is to do away with road tax altogether for all vehicles and put all the duty on fuel. This maybe taxes a little more fairly as those who drive more on the roads more pay more, considering say someone with a band E car who only uses it once a week to go to the local shop pays the same VED as someone with the same car who commutes everyday.

 

However motorists as you say are not the only ones using the road networks, so how would you get everyone paying a fair contribution for the use of the infrastructure? I guess you're right with the poll tax option, although that didn't work last time round....

[Carlos]

However motorists as you say are not the only ones using the road networks, so how would you get everyone paying a fair contribution for the use of the infrastructure?

Which gets more complicated when you factor in that income tax, vat, fuel duty, inheritance tax corporation tax and so on all go (or can go) towards roads spending too. So we don't know how much people are paying at the moment, even before we try to make any changes to how much we think they should pay....

[MaxFusion]

Again you seem to be missing the point Carlos....

 

As a pedestrian or cyclist I would still pay taxes if I worked or inherited or gained capitaly or ran a buisness but as a motorist I would have to pay even more taxes for the priviledge of driving a vehicle on the roads...

[Carlos]

Or possibly a pedestrian with a high paying job would pay more overall and not end up with vehicle use of the road at all? There's really no way of telling how much folk pay in total in tax contribution relative to how they use the road, only which individual taxes they pay.

But yes, there is no doubt that all things being equal using a vehicle means you end up paying more individual taxes, the only question is whether paying that extra tax means you should be entitled to something extra in return, and if so what it would be. And then what extra benefits people who pay more than average tax in other individual areas should expect from their contributions......

 

Churchill started the process of removing the road tax as a fund for road works because "It will only be a step from this for motorists to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created"

You could argue the point that that is a nice political body swerve to avoid direct accountability for the way in which the money was spent, or you could see it as more like an attempt to be inclusive, and not divide folk up by creating individual interests based on which separate taxes they pay.....

 

Moving quite far away from the Staney Hill now though.....

[shetlandpeat]

I think that this may have gone a little off topic. But, today, if you want to drive certain vehicles on the road you pay extra.

Trying to say that if you are a pedestrian on 100 grant you pay more tax than someone on 20 grand with a 2 litre ford capri. THERE IS NO RELEVANCE and it seems you are arguing the toss.

 

Anyhow, none of any tax needs to be spent on the Staney Hill track except to close it to vehicular traffic and force said vehicles to use the existing, fully tarmaced and signed roads built using said taxes for the purpose of conveying said vehicles either side of said hill.

[Ghostrider]

^^ Ah, just you wait until the new AHS is being built, it'll be upgraded as part of that contract to carry two lanes of traffic of 30+ ton units.

 

If you think playing dodgems with a few boy racers in their fart cannon fitted rice rockets is bad, just wait until there's two way traffic of 10 - 12 ton ten wheelers, the ones coming downhill carrying around 20 ton or so of rock apiece.

[shetlandpeat]

The track to Saxa Vord, Mossy Hill recommends you give way to traffic coming downhill. The highway code sez opp generally

[MuckleJoannie]

^^ Ah, just you wait until the new AHS is being built, it'll be upgraded as part of that contract to carry two lanes of traffic of 30+ ton units.

 

If you think playing dodgems with a few boy racers in their fart cannon fitted rice rockets is bad, just wait until there's two way traffic of 10 - 12 ton ten wheelers, the ones coming downhill carrying around 20 ton or so of rock apiece.

 

This was stated at the AHS consultation meeting last year, as a means of reducing construction traffic at Lochside and the Holmsgarth Road.