Safe Speed Forums

I don't know what you're thinking about. Your Pitts owner is already paying some £2,200 annually in motor fuel duty that he isn't liable for - and VAT on the duty too. The insurance adder doesn't make much difference to this massive injustice.

Surely the answer is to make proper provisions for non-motor fuel sales?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

What I'm thinking about is that non-motorists would pay considerably for something that is of no use to them and should not be applicable to them.

AFAICT, fuel duty is a general tax with no specific element related to road transport. You are proposing to change that. Your proposal takes a general tax and adds an element that should not apply to some users who would pay that tax. IMO, that is grossly unfair. FWIW, I am somewhat amazed that you consider a 12% hike to be not much difference.

BTW, you failed to comment on the proposal to attach an ATC levy on fuel. Would you object to paying for Air Traffic Control services that you would never use? I suspect that you would and for the same reasons as to why a motor-insurance levy on the same fuel is unfair.

In the end, your suggestion may have merit. That said, I'd want to see a mechanism in place to at least easily recover the insurance levy on fuel other than for road transport use, and ideally to allow supply of such fuel free of the insurance levy in the first place.

_________________
Will

Aviation fuel would not have to have the levy applied, I assume most aviation fuel is purchased at airfields as I don't often see aircraft at my local filling station.

As for other uses (lawnmowers, camping stves, off road) we could all benefit from the 3rd party cover being extended to pedestrians.

Thinking about willcove's comments about recreational non-road use of fuel, it seems to me that there's two possible appoaches to this. One is to make the fuel available to the user at a location where motor traffic can't get to normally. From what my boatie friends have said I get the impression that most places they fill up with marine diesel aren't accessible by car, so in their case they wouldn't be paying for road insurance and at the same time it's hard for someone else to dodge the premium. Couldn't the same apply to recreational aviation and motorsports?
Of course, what that idea doesn't deal with very well is willcove's situation. Presumably microlight owners just fill up at the same places as the rest of us since they won't necessarily take off from an airport with fuelling facilities, just as jet-ski/wet-bike owners can take the thing to the beach on a trailer. Perhaps the solution there would be a system to allow owners to get a rebate based on engine hours. That would even allow for changes to be made in the future if, for example, it was decided that jet-skis should have insurance but not microlights.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Aviation fuel for most microlighting and PFA types is bought at roadside filling stations and transported in fuel containers to the aircraft. That said, some types can be folded onto a trailer and taken to the strip, so you may see an aircraft at a filling station yet Farm strips and other small airfields don't sell fuel of any sort and visiting pilots rely on the goodwill of "residents" to give them a lift to a filling station to refuel. AIUI, pretty much the same goes for small boats. Many don't refuel at marinas but trailer their boat to a filling station or take the fuel in cans to the boat.

So, the next time you see someone filling up a couple of jerry cans, there's a good chance that he's an airman or sailor

_________________
Will

Nope. The petrol duty we all pay is very specifically motor fuel duty. Your Pitts pilot is paying hugely a tax that he isn't liable to.

Think of agro diesel - no motor fuel duty there - that's why its cheap.

Same for aviation fuel (purchased as such) no motor fuel duty there either.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Just a question regarding "non-road" users and the insurance they have.

Why shouldn't the insurance levy be applied to all fuel burning vehicles? Per vehicle, I'm sure jet skis kill more people that cars yet what sort of insurance are they required to have. Aircraft rarely fall from the sky and when they do they usually end up in a field but why not extend the insurance to cover damage caused by ANY fuel burning vehicle.

Ever been hit by a stone thrown up by a motor mower or edge trimmer or had a stone come through your window? These things break windows and injure people regularly so why not extend the insurance to cover them?

Just being devils-advocate for a minute....

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

AFAICT, light oils and heavy oils are treated very differently for excise duties. Looking at the HMCE duty tariff page here, no distinction is made for petrol between road and non-road use. It is only for heavy oils that this distiction is made. So, "petrol duty" is not specific to road transport.

Note that you can't get relief from fuel duties for recreational anything. On this subject (see here), HMCE list three schemes where you can obtain relief: industrial processes (but not as fuel), marine voyages (but not pleasure craft), and horticultural produce. Anyone else is mullered. So even if you are paying a duty for which you should not be liable, you cannot get a rebate.

_________________
Will