Report on motoring 2004 - conclusions

RAC believes that this year's Report on Motoring provides a unique and timely contribution to the debate about the future of driving in Britain.

The Report's theme intersects a range of principles relating to public policy and the preferences of Britain's 28 million regular drivers. In examining general costs we explored the motoring paradox of why people continue to stick with their cars even when faced with rising congestion and costs.

This Report has sought to combine a wealth of real world facts and data with their perception in the minds of the average motorist. A major issue to have emerged from our research is the gap between perception and reality. Motorists simply do not have a firm handle on the amount of money that they spend on owning and running their cars, either on an annual basis or as a proportion of their household income.

We have put forward a number of hypotheses to explain this phenomenon. Central to most of them is the unique complexity that characterises the process of paying costs associated with car ownership, compared to costs relating to most other areas of life. This may go some way to uncovering why it is that motorists continue to pay these costs - they are simply unaware of the extent of their expenditure. This even applies to fuel pricing, about which motorists are usually sensitive and vocal, although they still remain unaware of their own annual fuel bill. As a lever to changing behaviour, it seems that the current levels of additional cost are never enough to provoke a sea change in how most drivers act.

However, by asking motorists at what cost point they would consider switching from their car, the Report also shows that when faced with the reality of their current costs, most motorists feel that they could not endure much more than an extra £500 per annum, although a fifth of them would endure three times this amount and still not switch from their car for key journeys. We also saw a reversal in one significant trend with the number of drivers who could now imagine life without their car increasing compared to previous years. As most of these live in or near cities, we could conclude that congestion in city centres has become unendurable, or that public transport alternatives may be more readily identifiable in urban areas.

These outcomes led us to question exactly what options are available to the motorist who decides to leave his or her car at home occasionally, or even relinquishes his or her vehicle entirely. It is clear that not only is Britain's public transport system lacking in investment when compared to European infrastructures, but also that education about public transport alternatives is deficient. With 30% of motorists being unable to give an answer regarding how they would travel without their car in a variety of scenarios, we conclude that either the alternatives are not understood, or that motorists are simply not interested in even examining their choices.

Whilst drivers are unaware not only of their motoring-related costs and the public transport alternatives available to them, they are also insensitive to certain types of payment mechanism, such as fuel duty, which are charged little and often. Given that the majority of drivers state that they would not object to the levels of motoring taxation if driving were made easier, we proposed various charging systems to drivers. Their reactions showed a clear preference for a fuel-based charging system, which was surprising considering the level of emotion usually displayed at fuel price rises. However, it was felt to be an equitable measure and one that was easy to pay.

Unfortunately, we do not believe that the solution is this simple. Sticking to familiar payment mechanisms and applying slow but steady real price increases through the fuel bill will probably work to maximise revenue because motorists will do their best not to notice and are likely to keep paying none the less. However, if the objective is to reduce congestion - which is clearly the desire of most motorists and governments - fuel pricing is not a sharp enough instrument to achieve significant change. The other evident problem in radically raising fuel prices would be the negative impact on UK haulage, businesses in general and lower income drivers.

According to the perceptions indicated by this research, more swingeing price levers, which motorists may consider Big Conversation' could provide an opportunity for this.

Our final plea is to remember that with prices, taxes, charges and providing public transport alternatives - as with most other things in life - it's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it, and that's what gets results.

The RAC Report on Motoring 2005 costs £250.00.