The Lexus Lane

[gettin2dizzy]

Drivers could be offered the option of paying to overtake queues of traffic on motorways under an idea secretly being considered by the Highways Agency.
An extra lane – dubbed a “Lexus lane” because of the perception that only wealthier drivers could afford to use them – would be added either by widening the road or using the hard shoulder. A toll would be introduced to ensure that the extra capacity did not simply fill up with extra traffic.
Senior managers at the Highways Agency have discussed the idea, which they believe would help the Government to introduce road pricing on the strategic road network without alienating motorists. The Government has backed away from road pricing since 1.8 million drivers signed a petition against it this year.
Motoring groups argue that drivers have already paid for existing roads many times over through various taxes and should not be made to pay more for the same poor service.


But the agency’s toll-lane idea could be more acceptable because charges would be introduced only where extra capacity had been added. Drivers could choose either to remain on the existing lanes or to pay a toll for a faster journey. A senior source at the agency told The Times: “The technology for turning the hard shoulder into a running lane could have other applications, such as collecting and enforcing tolls. Drivers would have a choice; no one would be forced to pay to use the toll lane.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00252/TIM091GM10cm385_252928a.jpg

Good/Bad Idea?

[G]

No opinion on it really.

The people who cant afford it will hate the idea, the people who can will love it :rolleyes:

[gettin2dizzy]

I'm all for providing extra services (wahey!) but 4 lanes available to all would be more beneficial to the masses than a range rover runway open to the rich. How about a camera that monitored tailgating? or even police watching for lane hogs and dangerous drivers? The motorways are fine when operating, preventing the accidents is a priority.

[sarah]

I'm all for providing extra services (wahey!) but 4 lanes available to all would be more beneficial to the masses than a range rover runway open to the rich. How about a camera that monitored tailgating? or even police watching for lane hogs and dangerous drivers? The motorways are fine when operating, preventing the accidents is a priority.

but wouldn't it be tempting/amusing to pay to go on the rangerover runway just so that you could drive slowly and annoy the 4x4s behind you?

[gettin2dizzy]

but wouldn't it be tempting/amusing to pay to go on the rangerover runway just so that you could drive slowly and annoy the 4x4s behind you?
Very True. A booming SV wouldn't be annoying at all ....nope :)

It's end up like london; a playground for the rich.

However I would like this idea if it had a higher speed limit! :) 110?

[glsuk1970]

Sounds like our government are becoming more creative in finding new ways to fleece the average motorist. It'll just be full of sales reps who claim the toll charge back on expenses, just like the M6 toll.

The majority of other road users will just trundle along in the remaining lanes they've already paid for.

[caz650s]

Whos going to push a vehicle with lets say a siezed wheel to the nearest 'safe haven' area ?

I don't agree with not having a proper 'hard shoulder'.

[sarah]

Whos going to push a vehicle with lets say a siezed wheel to the nearest 'safe haven' area ?

I don't agree with not having a proper 'hard shoulder'.

I agree. I don't like that bit of motorway where they are trialling the use of the hard shoulder as an extra lane. Feels wrong.

[gettin2dizzy]

Whos going to push a vehicle with lets say a siezed wheel to the nearest 'safe haven' area ?

I don't agree with not having a proper 'hard shoulder'.
It does seem to work very well on the M42, where if there is an accident they turn the inside lane in to a hard shoulder by remote. :cheers:

[Daimo]

Bad idea. Another money fleecing chance....

Why not do it like they do in the USA.

1 "people" lane. If you have 2 or more people in the car, you can use the free lane.
1 person in car cannot use the express lane.

Amount of 1 persons in a car is a joke. Accompany that with poor driving, cheap cars etc, its going to make for a load of traffic.

Share the cars, the traffic cuts down. Those people prepared to share then can use the free lane.

Got it in the USA, and have to say, we travelled past LOADS of traffic with 1 person in every other car. Saved us hours i'd say! IT works, its been proved.

[Ceri JC]

Ah, that old myth that traffic expands to fill the roads available. 95%+ of traffic is making a necessary journey (work related or serving a purpose other than just recreation). Even those recreational journeys tend not to use motorways; Who here goes riding the motorway for fun over a single lane A-road? The idea that an appreciable number of people would choose to make more journeys if there were more lanes is just so ludicrous that I cannot grasp how even the most ardent ecomentalist would really believe it. They're jumbling up cause and effect, bless.

[Daimo]

Not only that, chances are, it'll be some rich bitch in her 4x4 and her 19hr per day husband will be paying it.....

So she carries on driving at her usual 50mph, and all the traffic gets stuck behined her again.

Lexus Lane also shows that its all about if your rich or not, yet again.... Those who are not rich, get stuffed, as usual.

I'll go down the mofo on my bike. They can fine me when they take a picture of my front reg plate..... ;)

[gettin2dizzy]

Bad idea. Another money fleecing chance....

Why not do it like they do in the USA.

1 "people" lane. If you have 2 or more people in the car, you can use the free lane.
1 person in car cannot use the express lane.

Amount of 1 persons in a car is a joke. Accompany that with poor driving, cheap cars etc, its going to make for a load of traffic.

Share the cars, the traffic cuts down. Those people prepared to share then can use the free lane.

Got it in the USA, and have to say, we travelled past LOADS of traffic with 1 person in every other car. Saved us hours i'd say! IT works, its been proved.

Works well in principle but I don't drive the same route as anyone to work. They did suggest in the article that it could be a 2 people plus and toll lane.

[gettin2dizzy]

Bikes don't cause congestion, I wonder if they're allowed. My viewpoint could change very selfishly here ;)

[mr.anderson]

Bike approach:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/TIM091GM10cm385_252928a.jpg

Solved.

[rigor]

Got it in the USA, and have to say, we travelled past LOADS of traffic with 1 person in every other car. Saved us hours i'd say! IT works, its been proved.

I think that you've just pointed out the flaw in the "2 person lane" plan. In the States where they have it people still travel 1 person to a car. It hasn't effected their habits at all! I agree, we went over and hired a car and drove down the car pool lanes all day long and it was a hoot passing all the American's stuck in traffic. But to say it makes people car share is false, people will use it when the happen to have 2 people in the car anyway, but for most journeys will just stick it out in the normal lanes (or chance that they can get away with joining th car pool lane)

[Warthog]

Bike approach:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/TIM091GM10cm385_252928a.jpg

Solved.

hehe

[El Saxo]

Going over old ground here I'm sure, but surely if they spent more money on putting more Police on the motorways to enforce correct lane discipline we wouldnt need the extra lanes in the first place? On my morning commute lanes 2 & 3 are always chock full of cars whereas lane 1 is virtually empty.

[Ceri JC]

Going over old ground here I'm sure, but surely if they spent more money on putting more Police on the motorways to enforce correct lane discipline we wouldnt need the extra lanes in the first place? On my morning commute lanes 2 & 3 are always chock full of cars whereas lane 1 is virtually empty.

Most definately. IMO The current motorway network would be perfectly adequate if people maintained good lane discipline, didn't keep chopping back and forth between lanes in jams (this is one of the main reasons for jams being prolonged long after the reason for them has gone) and didn't engage in sub-5mph (difference in speed) overtakes. A good advertising campaign detailing drivers' obligations to the above and a period of "driver education" (being pulled over by police for breaching the above), after which, you could be prosecuted for breaking them, would do a huge amount to improve the motorways. Never mind this road charging nonsense.

[gettin2dizzy]

I wonder how the Government could enforce lane discipline though. Europe seem to understand perfectly.

[Jdubya]

Bike approach:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/TIM091GM10cm385_252928a.jpg

Solved.

Nice, and then you get done for driving without due care and attention by undertaking the cars in the picture...:smt088:smt088:smt088


... but surely if they spent more money on putting more Police on the motorways to enforce correct lane discipline we wouldnt need the extra lanes in the first place?...

I've been saying that all along!

[Pedro68]

But to say it makes people car share is false, people will use it when the happen to have 2 people in the car anyway, but for most journeys will just stick it out in the normal lanes (or chance that they can get away with joining th car pool lane)
I was over in the States a few years back (around Washington DC) and we used to use the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane even when there was only 2 of us in the car (HOV lane was for MORE THAN 2 people sharing a car). Thing is ... it takes a lot of state troopers to patrol the exits to ensure that HOV lane regulations were being adhered to ... but me and my friend used them because she knew the lane exits and knew that some of the exits simply aren't "policeable" for safety reasons - my friend knew this and used it to our advantage :)

Going over old ground here I'm sure, but surely if they spent more money on putting more Police on the motorways to enforce correct lane discipline we wouldnt need the extra lanes in the first place? On my morning commute lanes 2 & 3 are always chock full of cars whereas lane 1 is virtually empty.
Absolutely! But ... sadly the government won't put more traffic officers on the roads because of the on-going costs ... installing an automated toll-based traffic system probably works out cheaper in the long-run, and it can constantly MAKE THEM MONEY rather than constantly cost them money (putting police traffic officers on the motorways).

I'm getting sick to death of being sat behind some idiot in the outside lane because their attitude is "well i'm travelling faster than THAT car in the middle lane, so I'll overtake it ... and although THAT car is half a mile away, I won't pull over to the middle lane because then I'll never get back out into the outside lane to overtake THAT car so I'm gonna sit here until I've passed THAT car".

Thing is ... THAT car in the middle lane is sat there thinking EXACTLY the same about THAT wagon on the inside lane :smt013

Plus, no sooner has "mr/mrs outside lane hogger" (eventually) passed "mr/mrs middle lane hogger" than they see that they are actually travelling ever-so-slightly faster than another car in the middle lane that is ANOTHER HALF MILE AWAY!! :smt013:smt013:smt013

FFS ... if you exhibited PROPER lane discipline in the first place I FOR ONE would be a damn site more willing to let you out again to overtake IF/WHEN the opportunity arose!

Ok ... and breathe :D

[Alpinestarhero]

I have a bike and I can filter

But anyway, to be more on the point of the thread...its a good idea, but then its not a great idea because of the lack of dedicated hard shoulder. What if tehres an accident? the emergency services are going to have to wait for all the cars to move aside and make a little gap through the traffic. moving at about...5mph? on the hard shoulder, movign at 30 mph. I know what would be better for saving a life...

Matt

[gettin2dizzy]

There is actually a hard shoulder if you look. There's the lexus lane, two normal lanes and one hard shoulder. During peak times the hard shoulder 'opens' when signs above the road change. If there's an accident what happens is most of the time people can roll in to one of the bays - there's one pretty often . If someone can't get to the bays they change the signage on the roads so that the hard shoulder becomes that- a hard shoulder again and traffic merges in to the normal lanes. I've seen it happen on the M42 and it works :)

[Mogs]

I think it's a stupid idea, it will induce envy in other drivers, they are bad enough about bikes. Protestors will soon block it up travelling at the same speed as the rest of the traffic.

[gettin2dizzy]

And as usual it will only encourage drivers of unregistered unisured cars, or cloned plates. I thought ANPR was a good idea, I don't know why it isn't enforced

[Sosha]

And God help the person who comes on at the slip road - crawls across 3 lanes of stationary traffic then tries to join a lane where people could be going at any speed.

Nope sorry - fast lane for the rich paid out of taxes? And how much would it cost to police it? Would reconsider for car sharers as at least that has some climate related benefit.

No hard shoulder?

:smt087

[Dicky Ticker]

Obviously the halfwit who gave the explanitory sketch doesn't realise trucks over 7.5t or fitted with speed limiters are not allowed in the "fastlane"

Well thought out if they are changing the law to enable vehicles limited to 56mph to use the fast lane

Who employs these halfwits?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

A toll would be introduced to ensure that the extra capacity did not simply fill up with extra traffic.

Perhaps I'm being dense, but surely filling up with traffic's the whole point of inreasing capacity? :?

Senior managers at the Highways Agency have discussed the idea, which they believe would help the Government to introduce road pricing on the strategic road network without alienating motorists.

"Senior managers at the Highways Agency have discussed the idea, which they believe would help the Government to introduce road pricing by the back door without alienating motorists."

I'm sure that's what that statement really means

But the agency’s toll-lane idea could be more acceptable because charges would be introduced only where extra capacity had been added. Drivers could choose either to remain on the existing lanes or to pay a toll for a faster journey. A senior source at the agency told The Times: “The technology for turning the hard shoulder into a running lane could have other applications, such as collecting and enforcing tolls. Drivers would have a choice; no one would be forced to pay to use the toll lane.”

... and to achieve the ultimate dream of tracking every vehicle too, it would seem.

Don't know about anyone else, but the irony of a Labour government that keeps coming up with schemes that only the rich can benefit from sure makes me laugh.

[northwind]

I'm not sure about the hard shoulder thing, though I think it's been tested in principle with less complete "open shoulder" ideas, but using the fees to pay for a road expansion is something I'd agree with- sort of like private health insurance, it takes strain off the rest of the service so everybody benefits.

Who here goes riding the motorway for fun over a single lane A-road? The idea that an appreciable number of people would choose to make more journeys if there were more lanes is just so ludicrous that I cannot grasp how even the most ardent ecomentalist would really believe it. They're jumbling up cause and effect, bless.

You're misunderstanding- the idea isn't that if you add a new lane it instantly fills, that's just daft; it's that over time the use of the road changes. If you're willing to commute for 30 minutes, and the roads are busy so you can only travel 15 miles in 30 minutes, you live 15 miles away. If the roads are less busy and you can cover 30 miles, you'll live up to 30 miles away. You don't avoid making the journey on a day by day basis, you plan your life more to avoid the journey.

Example- since they've improved the forth road bridge link, more people are living in fife and commuting to Edinburgh, and house prices in dunfermline are rising. More traffic on the roads. Eventually it'll probably strike the same equilibrium, the increased capacity will be used up by the additional journeys. The same thing happened about 15 years ago last time this happened, but over time the roads filled up so people stopped moving to dunfermline (also, because it's horrible there)

[Daimo]

I think that you've just pointed out the flaw in the "2 person lane" plan. In the States where they have it people still travel 1 person to a car. It hasn't effected their habits at all! I agree, we went over and hired a car and drove down the car pool lanes all day long and it was a hoot passing all the American's stuck in traffic. But to say it makes people car share is false, people will use it when the happen to have 2 people in the car anyway, but for most journeys will just stick it out in the normal lanes (or chance that they can get away with joining th car pool lane)

Not really I haven't. I said i saved hours, i didn't say the lane was empty. We were always following a line of traffic. Its just our express lane was moving vastly quicker than the stuck traffic.

So yes, if you had 2 people in the car, your saving x1 extra car on the road, and you can travel faster.

It was policed by cameras. And when lanes joined on and exit roads, the "static" line seperating the Express lane and normal lanes, became dotted so people could filter off.

And lets face it, if ANY american can drive a car safley accross 5 lanes of traffic ok, an English person "should" be able to... But that opinion of mine is fast dissapearing.

[Ceri JC]

You're misunderstanding- the idea isn't that if you add a new lane it instantly fills, that's just daft; it's that over time the use of the road changes. If you're willing to commute for 30 minutes, and the roads are busy so you can only travel 15 miles in 30 minutes, you live 15 miles away. If the roads are less busy and you can cover 30 miles, you'll live up to 30 miles away. You don't avoid making the journey on a day by day basis, you plan your life more to avoid the journey.


That only applies to commuters during rush hour (and even then, only a percentage of them). Go on the roads in the middle of the day and they are still busy. Most of the drivers on it are people whose work involves them driving and they have no say in where they get sent. Most of them are not self employed, so they as individuals aren't overly worried about how long it takes to get there. It the businesses and organisations that employ them that suffer. As the road network has worsened, the knock-on effect in my job is that they have to give us more travelling time to get somewhere. Consequently we do fewer jobs/have to charge our customers more. It's not like we're going to say, oh you're north of birmingham, no we can't offer our services to you.

I know it's one of those things that's very hard to quantify in any accurate, meaningful way, but I shudder to think how much money is lost from the UK economy each year due to congestion. Ironically, if they built an adequate road network in the first place, the taxes would come pouring in as a result of it. I hate all the anti-motorist stuff because it's based largely on the (incorrect) assumption that the vast majority could somehow do without personal transport, when the reality is that unless you live in a largeish city, you have no option. Likewise, this idea we should all live close to where we work, just to avoid having to commute on our overcrowded roads. That's the end of satellite towns and the countryside then; we'll all have to live in the suburbs of cities and commute in by bus.

Apologies if it sounds like I'm ranting at you personally, I just object to the idea you're touting which is that most people have any real choice in the matter of where they live/work, when in reality both are largely dictated by money (where you can afford to live, where the good jobs are) and other obligations (partner, kids, etc.). Okay, I could take a more local job (along with several grand of paycut), but why should I have to? It's not unreasonable for me to expect to be able to commute at a decent speed on an adequate road, which my road tax (never mind petrol) should already pay for, several times over. It fairly rare for people to jack in a job just because of the time the commute takes, rare examples are the really extreme ones like The Mass' old 200 mile+ round trip down the M4. Most people have "normal" commutes and just grit their teeth and bear it when it takes half an hour longer than it used to.

Even the former Chief Highway Engineer of the DoT (as it was when he was involved), agrees:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ndZVcax375EC&pg=PA574&lpg=PA574&dq=&source=web&ots=RPElpIjdLj&sig=26-YyhUue_LsvFKEf0rxUjdvyM8

Thankfully, bikes render the whole problem largely irrelevant (it's the poor sods in cars I feel sorry for). Jams might slow me down temporarily till I filter past them, but they never stop me making a journey. :D

BTW Forth road bridge link improved?! That some sort of joke? I was up in Airth and Forth 2 weeks back and the roads were an absolute nightmare. Fortunately I went by bike and every evening was able to duck into the coned off area and undertake the stationary traffic backed up for miles for Kincardine Bridge. :)

[northwind]

Apologies if it sounds like I'm ranting at you personally, I just object to the idea you're touting which is that most people have any real choice in the matter of where they live/work, when in reality both are largely dictated by money (where you can afford to live, where the good jobs are) and other obligations (partner, kids, etc.).

BTW Forth road bridge link improved?! That some sort of joke? I was up in Airth and Forth 2 weeks back and the roads were an absolute nightmare. Fortunately I went by bike and every evening was able to duck into the coned off area and undertake the stationary traffic backed up for miles for Kincardine Bridge. :)

It's still not finished in fact, but already the number of people making the commute is increasing because they know the improvement's coming- that makes my point even stronger wouldn't you say?

This example here is all about money, because people don't live in fife through choice ;) They live there because it's cheaper than a real place, and close enough to Edinburgh to commute.

[gettin2dizzy]

It's now official
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/04/nmway104.xml
Motorists will be given the option of paying more to use less congested motorway lanes under Government plans to be unveiled today.

I think 'more' is the key word there.

[Grinch]

And the number of unregistered cars goes up...

[Stu]

All they need to do is allow cars to use lane 1 - I believe they are restricted from doing so currently ?

[Stu]

I think it's a stupid idea, it will induce envy in other drivers, they are bad enough about bikes. Protestors will soon block it up travelling at the same speed as the rest of the traffic.
Because that's what happens on the M6 toll now :confused:

[gettin2dizzy]

1. invest in a decent rail network to get rid of those lorries that clog every road
2. Enforce lane discipline. Involve a mandatory lesson post-test
3. Shield one side of the motorway from the other with a blind as it will
-protect bikes from sliding over to the other side
-stop crashes resulting from rubbernecking
-stop blinding of drivers at night. Whoever designed roads that people pointed bright lights at each other was an idiot

[Grinch]

1. invest in a decent rail network to get rid of those lorries that clog every road
2. Enforce lane discipline. Involve a mandatory lesson post-test
3. Shield one side of the motorway from the other with a blind as it will
-protect bikes from sliding over to the other side
-stop crashes resulting from rubbernecking
-stop blinding of drivers at night. Whoever designed roads that people pointed bright lights at each other was an idiot

See now your trying to use logic on a situation that requires us to suck more money out of people...

HOV - is still a much better idea.

[gettin2dizzy]

See now your trying to use logic on a situation that requires us to suck more money out of people...

HOV - is still a much better idea.

Remember it's ok to spend £60 billion on a satellite tracking system for road pricing schemes, but not ok to suggest investment in new roads :) It's not green and not fashionable.

I paid £1.19 for a litre of diesel this weekend....(or 55 litres in total if you're going to be pedantic). I'm going to convert my car to run on ground up hippies this weekend.

[busasean]

lets not lose sight of the real objective here, which is to make money. its nothing to do with easing congestion. same as the congestion charge and emmissions charge in london. I pay road tax on my 3 road bikes, my 4 x 4 pick up and my smart car, I also pay tax on my insurance not to mention the amount of tax I pay on fuel. the easiest way to ease congestion is to get the 1 in 20 cars off the road that have no insurance/driving licence, enforce lane disipline on the motorways, invest in sensible priced public transport. the motorist is an easy target to raise revenue, which is why the speed camera scum now sit on bridges above motorways (statistically our safest roads).

[Ceri JC]

lets not lose sight of the real objective here, which is to make money. its nothing to do with easing congestion. same as the congestion charge and emmissions charge in london. I pay road tax on my 3 road bikes, my 4 x 4 pick up and my smart car, I also pay tax on my insurance not to mention the amount of tax I pay on fuel. the easiest way to ease congestion is to get the 1 in 20 cars off the road that have no insurance/driving licence, enforce lane disipline on the motorways, invest in sensible priced public transport. the motorist is an easy target to raise revenue, which is why the speed camera scum now sit on bridges above motorways (statistically our safest roads).

+1.

Enforcing lane discipline on the motorways and police busting people for parking in town in a manner which effectively narrows a 2 way street to a single lane, when "just nipping into the shop for 5 minutes" would make a far greater dent in congestion than all this anti-driver malarky. Other things that would help would be enforced temporary minimum speed limits at the scene of motorway accidents (to prevent rubber neckers driving by at 30 holding up the traffic for far longer than the original accident itself did) and a more centralised approach to road maintenance (esp. on motorways). None of these things cost that much money and all are certainly far cheaper than building new roads and road widening. None of them, however, generate revenue.

Quite why government is prepared to throttle the transport infrastructure, which, along with the telecommunications network (which oddly enough, they seem to leave pretty much alone), is possibly the single most important thing to modern industry is beyond me. When you consider that not only are many politicians in the pockets of big business, but that so much more tax could be generated by improving the roads, it's baffling as to why we have the current situation. I strongly suspect it's courtesy of that rather small, but oh so vocal minority, the ecomentalists.

[Stu]

Remember it's ok to spend £60 billion on a satellite tracking system for road pricing schemes, but not ok to suggest investment in new roads :) It's not green and not fashionable.

I paid £1.19 for a litre of diesel this weekend....(or 55 litres in total if you're going to be pedantic). I'm going to convert my car to run on ground up hippies this weekend.
Why not just run it on a mix of vegetable oil & diesel?

[yorkie_chris]

Nice, and then you get done for driving without due care and attention by undertaking the cars in the picture..

Which would make any motorway filtering illegal?


That usually ends in tears. The general public are stupid. In general.

Remember, 50% of people are of below average intelligence :-P


Who employs these halfwits?

Profiteering halfwits who can smile a lot and sock cuck to get into positions of power.


... and to achieve the ultimate dream of tracking every vehicle too, it would seem.

Don't know about anyone else, but the irony of a Labour government that keeps coming up with schemes that only the rich can benefit from sure makes me laugh.

That red rose should be a red star with how they act. All salute Comrade Brown.


Seems the best form of transport in a few years is going to end up being a nitrous gixxer with no plate that you forgot to send off the V5 for.

[yorkie_chris]

Why not just run it on a mix of vegetable oil & diesel?

Ground up hippies don't burn as well, but it's a good fuel as it reduces the amount of methane in the atmosphere from all the $hit they talk :-D

[Grinch]

Seems the best form of transport in a few years is going to end up being a nitrous gixxer with no plate that you forgot to send off the V5 for.

And its up to the previous owner to send of the details of a new owner so if the address is wrong they are stuffed. And if the DVLA can't located the new owner they blame and fine the old one.

[yorkie_chris]

False name etc. will sort that, at the expense of the previous owner, but if you're goign to run a totally illegal bike then thats probably near the bottom of thelist of offences :rolleyes:

[gettin2dizzy]

Why not just run it on a mix of vegetable oil & diesel?
It's a common rail diesel. And after the service I've booked for next week (at ?250!) I'm not to keen to take that risk ;)

I wish I bought an old old merc 190D to run on chip fat.

[yorkie_chris]

Veg oils a bit too thick in this weather, 50-50 works OK though.

But since you're slapping fuel tax anyway, why not just distill red diesel?