I dislike the idea of a black box tracking our every move. How long will it be before the distance travelled is measured and fines imposed if a driver is seen to have arrived at his destination too quickly? It’s a further attack on our civil liberties.
Anne Hepworth, Leeds A tracking device in our cars? Are people going to accept this? If so, I will be shocked at how easy the public are being walked over by the Government. Surely petrol tax is already a way of taxing us for the distance we drive. What is the need for tracking? Neil Denning, London
GPS signals are incredibly weak and receivers can easily be jammed with kit that an electronics hobbyist could knock up for a few pounds. Without the record of car movements, the Government would be unable to collect the tax. Mark Pedley, Cambridge
Scrap the road fund licence and add about 12p a litre to the price of fuel. This would reduce the cost of collection, gas guzzlers would pay proportionately more and foreign vehicles would not escape the net. Ken McDonald, Stansted Mounfitchet, Essex
Politicians seem strangely diffident about discussing remote working, which involves neither driving the poor off the road nor applying elaborate taxing schemes. It must surely be a topic for serious debate at the Gleneagles event in July. Companies are beginning to recognise that this is a positive solution to many employment problems as well as commuting, but it needs Government support to become a serious career option. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown together are bright enough to see that effective remote work management is a way out of many of our current traffic and environment problems. Elizabeth Duncan, Edinburgh
My 78-year-old mother, who is recovering from cancer, is struggling to look after my 83-year-old father, who has Alzheimer’s. They live in London; I live and work in Wales. On most Friday evenings I drive to London in order to do what I can for them - a round trip of some 460 miles. Under the Government's new proposals, how much would I be charged for undertaking this essential journey? Name and address withheld
The proposed pay-as-you-go tax will eliminate the need for fuel efficient cars. There will be no incentive for owning a smaller, more environmentally friendly vehicles. The tax will cause greater demand for fuel with environmental consequences. Ironic since Tony Blair is desperately trying to persuade George Bush that the environment should be taken more seriously. Callie Rafalukster, Irchester
In the not too distant future our cars will run on hydrogen fuel cells so how else will the Government raise the money it presently gets on fuel tax other than road pricing? Water is free. Derek Ashwell, Blackwood, Gwent
I find it amazing that we have given in to this tax, which is what it is. It is just another way for the Government to generate revenue. From £1.30 a mile to £2.50 a mile - the price will go up; then there will be another tax for making short journeys, and so on and on. It is a stupid idea and deserves the contempt it gets. Michael Stanford, Slough
What about those drivers registered abroad and arriving in the UK for short-term visits? Will their vehicles have to be fitted with a satellite tracking device, only to have it removed on departure? Such a system would be a nightmare for all involved, yet necessary if owners of UK-registered vehicles were not to feel that foreigners were getting away without paying. Tony Titchener, Seaford, Sussex
Twenty years ago I walked a mile to my place of employment. Two redundancies later, I now drive 35 miles each way to work. Many of my acquaintances have similar experiences. The solution to congestion is more stable employment, and provision of affordable housing close to work. High mileage charges at peak times will simply tax many employees off the road into unemployment. Robert Kelly, Wirral
There is a fundamental conflict of interest in pay-as-you-drive congestion charging. The price is set according to the level of congestion: a quiet rural road will cost 1p per mile, whereas at peak times a busy urban road will cost up to £1.30. Therefore, the Government stands to profit by increasing congestion. For example, converting a motorway lane to a bus-only lane would increase congestion, thus justifying a price hike. By the same logic, no new trunk roads would be built and no existing roads widened. There will be no new underpasses or bypasses either, as the Government stands to lose money from these congesting-reducing measures. Road-use charging will work initially, but in the long term it will put a halt to investment in the road network, and damage our economy. Andrew Montgomery, Oxford
I live in Leeds and use the two-plus lane most days to commute to my workplace in Wakfield; but on days when I don’t have a passenger, it is faster to take an alternative route. Where the difference in cost is not too great, it is surely obvious that roads which cost less to use will become more congested as the motorways and other expensive routes clear of traffic. I hope that the proposals will be considered in light of this point, and allowances made for the effects. E. J. Gilmour, Leeds
Don’t we have this already? Surely the tax on fuel not only charges those who drive frequently more, but also charges those who drive uneconomical and less environmentally friendly cars. Why do we need another tax? I say scrap the road tax and whack it all on fuel. Name and address withheld
The amount spent on roads and infrastructure is but a fraction of Britain’s tax revenue. If the public transport system were reliable and affordable we would all use it, but the Government has failed in this issue. Now they want to tax the motorist even more under the guise of cleaning up the environment. Name and address withheld
Please complete the form below and your contribution will be considered for publication. It may be necessary to edit your comments. Wherever possible we would like you to include your name, address and e-mail. Priority will be given to e-mails providing these details.
