Nearly 70 percent of people who took part in an online survey organised by the Dutch automobile association (ANWB) are in favour of some form of pay-as-you-drive system to replace car tax.
However, most came out against higher charges for motorists during the rush hour, saying it was unfair for people to be penalised for going to work. A majority also rejected the use of a ‘black box’, which would register the journeys made. This was seen as being too complicated and expensive, as well as posing a threat to privacy.
Both higher rush-hour charges and a ‘black box’ were central to the government’s pay-as-you-drive plans. The proposals were dropped after the fall of the cabinet and the announcement of early elections.
About 400,000 people, around 350,000 of them ANWB members, took part in the survey which was launched on 23 January. They were not asked simply if they were for or against the government’s pay-as-you-drive system, but were presented with a range of propositions.
Despite the demise of the government plan, ANWB Director Guido van Woerkom maintains that the survey is still relevant. “This issue has been on the agenda for 30 years and will certainly be back. Our survey will serve as a housewarming present for the new minister of transport,” he is quoted as saying in the NRC Handelsblad newspaper.
Dutch political parties have been eager to claim that the survey results back their own positions on the issue. The Christian Democrats, who ditched the government proposal after the fall of the coalition, claim the survey vindicates their U-turn.
Labour and Green Left says it backs the general idea of pay-as-you-drive. The Socialist Party sees it as an indication that the outgoing government’s plans are dead and buried, while the conservative VVD claims the result tallies with own opposition to the idea.
© Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Dutch traffic jams
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
WHY DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT "SURVEY" WAS HIGHLY SLANTED IN FAVOR OF PAY AS YOU GO AND IT WAS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER YOU WERE NOT IN FAVOR. ALMOST EVERY QUESTION DID NOT GIVE THAT OPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THAT WAS NOT AN OBJECTIVE SURVEY
The notion behind this is deeply, deeply flawed. For one thing, it penalizes people in roughly the same way if they replace an old car with a new, more efficient one, or if they do not. It produces the burden of installing these devices in vehicles, never mind the fact that it treats every driver like a paroled convict who is compelled to wear a tracking anklet.
Plus the thing that struck me immediately upon hearing about this proposed years ago: there already is a per-use tax: the tax on fuel, which doesn't require the elaborate means by which to monitor the polulation as if they were arctic wolves having their mating patterns studied.
Plus, what do you do with those driving in NL whose vehicles are registered elsewhere? Are the border posts to be remanned to charge drivers as they are in teh Swiss tunnel scheme?
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.