Environmental issues have never been higher on the agenda than today and with this has come concerted pressure on the motorist. Deemed as one of the most highly polluting sources of pollution, the question has now fallen on how to shift people away from their cars. Initiated by the Stern Review, a number of additional schemes have either been introduced or are currently being planned, leading to the question of what does the future hold for the motorist?

The Stern Review stated one overriding conclusion, that the world must act now on climate change or face devastating consequences. Unfortunately it also appears that this action is going to lead to devastating consequences for motorists. Various proposals in the Stern Review were suggested, including introducing a fuel-price stabilizer, meaning when fuel prices they will never be able to fall again, and per mile road charging.

Taking a deeper look into each proposal uncovers fundamental flaws. Artificially setting prices has never made economic sense and furthermore, the fuel price stabilizer would simply have the effect of desensitizing people from changes in the fuel price. Consider a huge rise in fuel prices which subsequently fall but this fall is not reflected in the price. People become used to this new higher price and when they see that it stays at this level for many months they become used to it, never lowering their consumption, even if fuel prices then begin to gradually rise.

Then there’s per mile road charging. As it stands people are charged on a per mile basis – the further one drives the more fuel they use and the more they pay. Is this not a ploy to generate even more revenue and prepare for a time when cars no longer run on fuel? If everyone was to suddenly switch to electric cars the government would lose a vital source of revenue. Per mile road charging could fill in the shortfall, brought in under the umbrella of concern for the environment.

A couple of new road charges have been brought in. The first, to be introduced in Richmond-upon-Thames, is that homeowners will be charged a fee to park their vehicle outside their homes, the value of the charge depending on the type of car they own. Residents’ parking restrictions, initially introduced to help homeowners park outside their homes, are suddenly being turned against the very people they were meant to help.

The London Congestion charge has already risen to £8 a day from its original £5 a day, and proposals were unveiled recently to charge so-called “gas-guzzlers” £25 a day to drive into Central London. An extortionate amount by anyone’s standards.

However, something has to be done to protect the environment so what’s wrong with making a start and pricing polluting motorists and vehicles off the road? It’s certainly hard to argue against the fact that some cars do pollute large amounts of greenhouse gases and they should be discouraged. But isn’t the real fact to emerge from all this that the car driver is simply an easy target? Infrastructure is already in place whereby large additional taxes can be introduced whilst many people have little choice but to use their car, meaning that the revenue generated from these taxation schemes will be significant. Even the Stern Review undermines its argument against the motorist by producing figures showing that transport is responsible for 14% of all the emissions of greenhouse gases in the UK. Transport that includes car travel, lorries, buses, trains, ships and aircrafts. In addition, the argument is that economic growth will suffer if we fail to act now. This simply neglects the effect of imposing huge taxes on motorists, seriously inhibiting people’s ability to travel to work and help the economy, and this is all without even mentioning a certain rapidly growing country – China.

With congestion continuing to rise on Britain’s roads a number of solutions have been proposed, raising tax being the main one. However, every day in the UK there are over 10 million empty seats on the roads. Worse still, the vast majority of these empty seats are during the rush hour, with average occupancy for commuting only 1.2. The solution appears to be simple – car sharing. This is further supported by recent research which found that over 50% of commuters would car share on their way to work if they could find someone suitable to share with.

Car sharing has often been talked about but only ever considered to be a small scale solution, unlikely to have a significant effect on congestion levels. Again, the evidence suggests otherwise. A 25% increase in car occupancy levels would result in the number of commuting cars on the road falling by 21%. Put another way, if everyone shared a journey to work just once a week then the effect would be similar. With over 50% of people happy to try car sharing out this could be an attainable target.

So why has car sharing failed to take off in a big way? Put simply, a lack of funding. Without the money to raise awareness of car sharing and the ways to go about finding someone to share with, the concept of car sharing is always going to be doomed to being an insignificant solution.

Why hasn’t the funding been provided by the government, particularly in light of the many reports that have come out over recent years highlighting the potential of car sharing? One can only speculate but to governments the idea of car sharing isn’t so attractive. It generates no additional government revenue and is in fact likely to reduce it, particularly with the decline in fuel consumption. Compared with the prospect of continuing to dramatically increase taxes on motorists, many of whom have no choice but to use their cars, car sharing doesn’t stand a chance.

The benefits of car sharing are also often vastly underestimated. Car sharing does hugely reduce petrol consumption for the individuals involved and if promoted in a large way then congestion and pollution could be reduced significantly. Other benefits include reduced parking problems and the lower mileage done by each car means that they depreciate less rapidly.

However, one statistics that is overlooked is the impact of car sharing on road safety. The number of speeding fines handed out in the UK in 2005 reached the 2 million mark. With road safety being of such apparent importance the statistic that the likelihood of having an accident is reduced by 50% if there are two or more people in the car should make the relevant authorities sit up and take note. The way to increase road safety is to promote car sharing. The added fact that it is also makes driving cheaper for the individual, and reduces congestion and pollution, should encourage people to take car sharing seriously.

Becoming involved in car sharing is very straightforward. Liftshare.org was established in 1997 and now has over 130,000 members one million journeys registered. It’s also free to join, with a simple registration form to complete before you can register a journey and begin searching for travel companions. Whether you’re traveling to work, a festival or a sporting event car sharing is possible.

Alex Hunter, The Master Driver, Traffic Guru and author of The Power of Driving; How to Prevent 41,000+ Americans from Dying Every Year! reveals yet another Tip Sheet that saves time, money and gas all while eliminating stress, frustration and congestion. [PRWEB Apr 23, 2005]