# Road Pricing



## Freetochat (10 Jan 2007)

Do you agree with tracking of all vehicles and road pricing? If not sign the petition!

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/


----------



## DomValente (10 Jan 2007)

Hmmm !
Do I want a bunch of crooks to know where I am every minute of the day and then charge me for the privilege.
Or, shall I wait until we have some honest people in Parliament.
I'll just hold my breath then.


----------



## Anonymous (10 Jan 2007)

DomValente":2y037vvc said:


> Do I want a bunch of crooks to know where I am every minute of the day and then charge me for the privilege.



Thats what it boils down to. What will the new tax revenue be spent on? More road's? Buse's Taxi's aeroplanes? all with noxious emissions :roll: ? :roll: Its just to get the wages and pension fund dues for the state elite who will operate this loony scheme.
Same with rubbish tax, excuse to turn rubbish into a commodity again to pay council wage's and pension's.

I will be signing up I read about this in the paper today (not the graudian)


----------



## Freetochat (10 Jan 2007)

DomValente":3hyt60m5 said:


> Hmmm !
> Do I want a bunch of crooks to know where I am every minute of the day and then charge me for the privilege.



and operated from a call centre in India!! :lol:


----------



## Jake (10 Jan 2007)

I think its a good idea. They need to ration roads somehow, or they will be completely seized up in 15 year's time. Fuel duty has the advantage of encouraging heavy drivers to drive economical cars, but doesn't do anything to shift traffic patterns away from rush hours.


----------



## DomValente (10 Jan 2007)

Agreed, something must be done.
I live in 4 b' 4 land,where if you meet one in a country lane they refuse to go onto the verge in case they dirty their alloys, let's ban them unless you need one, school runs don't count as, need one, nor does going to the hairdressers or driving to the golf club.
They make it impossible to park at a supermarket unless you have a mini, they take up more space on the road they use more fuel and most of them are ugly.

and breath


----------



## Shultzy (10 Jan 2007)

Road pricing will only mean more money for the Treasurey as people can't change their daily work travel. Until alternatives are provided people won't drive any differently. If we have to cut down on travelling its the leisure industry (national trust , Alton Towers etc.) that will suffer.


----------



## Freetochat (10 Jan 2007)

No can doubt the need to change road travel, even if you exclude environmental, there is still the increasing problem of congestion. However, nothing will change unless there is a comprehensive review of how we live. Many have a life of school, off to work, back to school etc. Schools all start at the same time which reduces flexibility in the work place etc. Greater use should be made of homeworking, especially with fast broadband allowing connection to the office. Allow more community supermarkets from the big operators so that local shopping can be costed the same as the out of town retail parks. Not wishing to go political, but it needs a different vision to change things.


----------



## Philly (10 Jan 2007)

Gents!
Please don't forget the forum "No Politics" rule!
Cheers
PhillyMod


----------



## Anonymous (10 Jan 2007)

Jake":2xq1l9fz said:


> I think its a good idea. They need to ration roads somehow, or they will be completely seized up in 15 year's time. Fuel duty has the advantage of encouraging heavy drivers to drive economical cars, but doesn't do anything to shift traffic patterns away from rush hours.



Thats all very well from your perspective in London where you got decent regular buses/underground train's/cycle lanes and it IS possibly _just _feasible to do without a car etc but what about in scenario's where folk live in rural places where theres no commercial gain in laying on more buses etc and getting to places means _having_ to go by car? Is it fair and reasonable to expect rural drivers to have to pay for journey's if theres no alternative like what you are fortunate to have in London? Tell us Jake on what basis should roads (or at least free access to roads) be rationed if its a good idea? Should it just be the drivers who can _afford_ it and everyone else be doomed to stay indoors, or should it be some other method? I am still not convinced that there is any reason for road charges other than raising yet more tax revenues to finance the wage and pension bill of the ever increasing army of civil servants. We already pay road fund tax and fuel duty which are already too high without the added burden of a road charge on top. And any way why would the governmnt need to track every vehicle at all times :shock: That is just far out weird and wacky :roll:


----------



## Scrit (10 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":19v9qnyt said:


> And any way why would the governmnt need to track every vehicle at all times :shock: That is just far out weird and wacky :roll:


There's a very obvious politiocal answer to that, but let's not go there

Agreed, something needs to be done. Not just here, but across the world. We all live a lifestyle which the planet simply cannot support any longer. And how do we change things? Well not by using a sticking plaster tax, that's for sure, especially one which seems destined to ensure that the less well off end up living in the socially impoverished state of our early postwar forebears. Politicians of all colours need to learn to take responsibility for their actions and words. It might be rather refreshing to see them setting a good example on this and leading from the front, just for a change.

Oh look, I see the homing pigs are returning to the roost......

Scrit


----------



## Jake (10 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":230glceh said:


> Thats all very well from your perspective in London where you got decent regular buses/underground train's/cycle lanes and it IS possibly _just _feasible to do without a car etc



Please have no doubt we'll get battered harder than anyone else. We're first in line for the crudest expression of this, after all, and already paying it, unlike you. 



> but what about in scenario's where folk live in rural places where theres no commercial gain in laying on more buses etc and getting to places means _having_ to go by car?



There'll be more commercial (and personal) incentive once road charging is introduced. Anyway, the aim will (or ought) be to cut congestion as much as carbon emissions, so your rural lanes (where I grew up) won't cost you anything like the same as the main commuter routes into and out of main conurbations. 



> Is it fair and reasonable to expect rural drivers to have to pay for journey's if theres no alternative like what you are fortunate to have in London?



Assumptions are skewed.



> Tell us Jake on whati basis should roads (or at least free access to roads) be rationed if its a good idea? Should it just be the drivers who can _afford_ it and everyone else be doomed to stay indoors, or should it be some other method?



It can be one in one out at peak times on congested routes if you prefer, but that would only tackle congestion and not carbon emissions, and might be a bit random and economically inefficient.



> I am still not convinced that there is any reason for road charges other than raising yet more tax revenues to finance the wage and pension bill of the ever increasing army of civil servants. We already pay road fund tax and fuel duty which are already too high without the added burden of a road charge on top.



You need to do some research into traffic flow projections. Do you want your rural idyls covered in new tarmac? 




> And any way why would the governmnt need to track every vehicle at all times :shock: That is just far out weird and wacky :roll:



If you have a mobile, they can anyway should they really need to.


----------



## RogerS (10 Jan 2007)

DomValente":1vttpqxr said:


> Agreed, something must be done.
> I live in 4 b' 4 land,where if you meet one in a country lane they refuse to go onto the verge in case they dirty their alloys,



What's the difference between a hedgehog and a Porsche 4x4 Carrera ?


----------



## Scrit (10 Jan 2007)

Roger Sinden":3f5kor5s said:


> What's the difference between a hedgehog and a Porsche 4x4 Carrera ?


Is that something like "a hjedgehog has the pricks on the outside"?  

Rude...... but true :wink: 

Scrit


----------



## mudman (10 Jan 2007)

Scrit":yw4rdjjk said:


> Roger Sinden":yw4rdjjk said:
> 
> 
> > What's the difference between a hedgehog and a Porsche 4x4 Carrera ?
> ...



And one of the funniest things I've seen is a porsche towing a caravan on the M50.

I've signed up. Don't like it, scares me.
Wouldn't mind road pricing so much if there was a viable alternative. I have to travel 50 miles to work in Bristol. Trains are not an option due to being so unreliable, rubbish and not running to a timetable that lets me have a life as well as a full day's work. So, the car it is.

Anyway, I wonder if the GPS unit in the car would work if encased in a thick layer of tin foil?


----------



## Noel (10 Jan 2007)

A Porsche Carrera 4, actually....although I much prefer the Carrera 2. The Cayenne is more associated with the Axles of Evil......With or without the spikey things inside....


----------



## RogerS (11 Jan 2007)

Remind me never to tell jokes again unless I can get the damn car right     I meant the Cayenne. 

Tin foil probably would block the signals but the technology is there with ANPR (automatic number plate recognition system) to detect that your car has just gone past ANPR at a road tax pricing boundary but that the road tax system hasn't got you on record at that time...ergo you've messed about with the road tax unit in your car.

Similar thing applies to congestion charge technology. All those magic number plates that 'could not be read' by the Gatso? Waste of money. if it can't be read by Gatso and the computer then the image is automatically workflowed to a human to eyeball it and you still get nicked for speeding !


----------



## Anonymous (11 Jan 2007)

Jake you seem a bit mixed up because you started out by saying you think road pricing is a good idea then belly aching because you already have it in London and are certain to get it even worse. Is it the case that Londoners are already being observed by spy camera's and being charged so much pence per mile? Or are you talking about the _congestion charge_ that the "chiselling crook" inposed, motivated by nore than a hint of class war mentality? :lol: :lol: It seems what your really saying is that its a good idea nationally. Your assumptions are skewed?? Your still avoiding the issue that in your metropolitan idyll you have long established reliable and practical alternatives to a personal car and if someone persists in car use in London then there is possibly a case for expecting them to pay out for the privelidge. But there are vast swathes of the UK where public transport is thin to non existent on the ground. People living those places simply wont have the option to use an alternative means of transport. 
I dont need to do traffic flow projections (civil servant non-job). I want to know why yet more tax is about to be demanded of the motorist, as I am not convinced it has any value in helping the congestion, pollution etc only to get more cash for wages and pension's. And you can bet that council employees civil servants etc will be charge exempt. And if you do a one in one out system it sounds fine in theory but what about the place where they have the lights or whatever to let people in it'd be worse than ever even if it was clear in the places where the congestion was reduced

:wink: :lol:


----------



## Shivers (11 Jan 2007)

We have for yrs already had a better record of public transport ect than most countrys.
I wasn't sure what the term chelsea tractor meant --until the other day i saw one on the tele --for gods sake its a small 4x4 landrover/range rover--whats the problem with owning one of those,fuel tax is rediculously high in this country & has been since the word dot,now what with parking fees,talk of tracking devices --how is a society supposed to operate when people are driven away from private transport, 
LPG has been available as an economical alternative for yrs---so wheres the big promo on that,are there any breaks for having a conversion NO!,no you gotta buy an overpriced eco car for that,this country's way of thinking is a shambles ---& the general public keeps sucking it up.
It's our right in a modern society to have private transport,if we aren't allowed to have our own car ---why are there still adverts every 15 minutes on the tele for vehicles of all shapes & sizes---you are all being conned into thinking you are doing something wrong,we know what the answer is ---less people,thats the real question--but its too big to contemplate- as a shrinking population cant support an economy--think about it,---so who do you really think is avoiding the big question?


shivers.


----------



## RogerS (11 Jan 2007)

Shivers":ni59wn8w said:


> We have for yrs already had a better record of public transport ect than most countrys.



Curious to know by what criteria you are basing this on and over what time frame? Safety? Punctuality? Reliability? Pricing? In 1900 to 1905 ? Surely not in 2007 !



Shivers":ni59wn8w said:


> I wasn't sure what the term chelsea tractor meant --until the other day i saw one on the tele --for gods sake its a small 4x4 landrover/range rover--.



Nothing wrong at all with these apart from very high CO2 emissions and poor fuel consumption. And fine when used in sensible locations eg rural but not taking children all of 800 yards down a very crowded London street. Accident statistics also show that for a pedestrian the chances of injury are significantly higher when hit by Chelsea tractor then when hit by a more sensibly sized car.


----------



## Shivers (11 Jan 2007)

Roger Sinden":qwuiltxa said:


> Shivers":qwuiltxa said:
> 
> 
> > We have for yrs already had a better record of public transport ect than most countrys.
> ...



agreed they are more liable to injure ---so is a bus,if i wanted to convert to horse and cart--what sort of authorities would i have to get permission from to be able to do so,& what sort of parking grade would i fall into,you see its all rediculous the way people are set up to think --already on your opening you quote saftey measures,fuel tax accounts for a primary percentage of the cost at the pump already--its not our fault if someone cant manage the income from that --& do the right things with it.

i missed the public transport query--compared to any city in the usa we are streets ahead on public transport,you wonder why they have cheap fuel--it's because it drives the whole economy over there,they have a inafective public transport system for commuters.


shivers.


----------



## Waka (11 Jan 2007)

If road pricing is to be introduced then the powers that be, must ensure that there is an alternative means of public transport covering the whole of the UK. It is all very well talking about decreasing the number of cars on the road but how do people in rural areas get to and from work.

As usual no thought has gone into how this will work or effect a vast majority of the population.

I have no problem with road pricing as long as a reliable public transport system is in place to cater for all, and the current road fund licence is abolished and finally fuel duty is reduced to zero.

But we all no this will not happen, one way forward is to restrict households to one vehicle only, that will reduce the number of cars signifcantly. As for gas guzzling 4x4 I don't even want to go there.


----------



## Scrit (11 Jan 2007)

Shivers":kihwoszi said:


> We have for yrs already had a better record of public transport ect than most countrys.


From experience: against Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark that most certainly isn't true! We have an infrequent, unreliable, overcrowded, dirty and more to the point _extremely_ expensive public transport network which is hardly a pleasure to use and which doesn't run when people need it, e.g. early in the moprning and late at night. The network is chronically underfunded with at times highly questionable mainainance standards not to mention disjointed with little or no attempt to integrate bus and rail timetables. And unlike France, Italy and Japan, etc our long-distance trains are slow, uncomfortable (been on a new Virgin train?) and once again very expensive. It comes to something when firms up here now _fly_ people to London from Manchester or Leeds (with the environmental impact that all implies) because it's considerably _cheaper_ than going by rail! 

Scrit


----------



## dedee (11 Jan 2007)

Listen, if everyone else would use public transport it would be far easier for ME to drive my car to work :!: :wink: 

Andy

ps we don't actually have public transport anymore, do we? - isn't it all run by private companies who, by the very nature, have to make a profit?


----------



## Adam (11 Jan 2007)

Guys all this talk is about their being no alternative to driving to work. There is, move closer to work.

After you tot up just the petrol for a year, the depreciation, the stress, the time, the road tax, the insurance, then.....never mind it costing a lot of money to move house, its costs a lot of money not to move house to be closer, i.e. walking/cycling distance away.

We've followed this route and got rid of a car. I keep hearing of people who drive huge distances, change their car every couple of years, spend an hour or two each way, vast amounts on petrol, but they will not take a local job even at a grand or two less - which is madness, the costs of driving to work are quite extreme, often in depreciation on a car.

Sure its an upheaval if you have kids, but if you gained back a couple of hours to be outside playing with them, or heaven forbid you'd get extra time in the workshop. Now thats got to be worth considering. :wink: 

Adam


----------



## RogerS (11 Jan 2007)

dedee":211shpj1 said:


> Listen, if everyone else would use public transport it would be far easier for ME to drive my car to work :!: :wink:
> 
> Andy
> 
> ps we don't actually have public transport anymore, do we? - isn't it all run by private companies who, by the very nature, have to make a profit?



Actually a very good point, Andy, especially as it touches on another 'soap-box' of mine, namely that civil servants (local and central govt) are usually pretty inept when it comes to negotiating contracts. Metronet on the London tube springs to mind. The Inland Revenue (IIRC) letting their contractor (EDS? Accenture?) off the hook without paying any penalty charges when the IT project got canned as it was too little/too late/not fit for purpose. "Not in the public interest" were the weasel words used by the government. (probably applies to all governments).

Another one relates to why you read/hear about 'loads of empty buses going down oxford Street'. that one is very simple to explain. When TfL negotiated the tender they simply stipulated..how much will you charge to provide x buses an hour. No concept as to whether or not there is actually a demand for x buses outside rush-hour. So the private companies are simply honouring the contract they have signed up to. Nice one, Ken.

But we live in a 'me-first' age, it seems to me...as epitomised by the 4x4 driver the other day who parked sideways across two disabled bays. That plus the fact that all the builders in Malvern are disabled since the two disabled bays outside my local Bradfords are always filled up with Property Care vehicles and the like. :evil: Makes me want to introduce their kneecaps to Mr Iron Bar ...selfish gits....rant over ....

I guess there is nothing in principle against road-pricing (especially as we already pay for it via excise duty on petrol/road fund licence etc). And it could be scaled appropriately...so us here in rural areas get to pay only 0.0001p per mile as we have no public transport whereas those who live in the cities with their excellent, reliable, cheap public transport :wink: can pay £1.20 per mile. That seems very equitable to me :lol: 

Just as long as the contracts are negotiated by professional procurement people from the private sector.


----------



## Shivers (11 Jan 2007)

Ok so i was off the mark with public transport--it's still better than most countries but not good as it used to be -who's fault is that--the epeople whom are telling us now that we need to use more public transport,

this tax as you drive thing is already in force --its called fuel tax(nothing wrong with that at all apart from being more expensive),why introduce a program to track you & pay tax you on distance traveled,how much more of a complicated system could they come up with,

what happens if you fall short of the bill amount for the month or quarter--whatever it will be.do they clamp your car--send the baliffs in/add surcharges like the inland revenue.

will there be a standing charge whether you travel or not.
how much will the admin for this elaborate system cost.

on & on & on,people don't realize what this lot are up too.

what happened to the pledge to reduce red tape last year.

shivers.


----------



## RogerS (11 Jan 2007)

Shivers":klh6mrf1 said:


> what happens if you fall short of the bill amount for the month or quarter--whatever it will be.do they clamp your car--send the baliffs in/add surcharges like the inland revenue.



Sshh..you'll give them ideas, Shivers!!

What a brilliant way to reduce congestion. Hike the price up high enough. Put enough glitches in the system to give you inaccurate bills. Set up an Indian call centre. Award the contract to C*apita and with service levels of 21 working days to respond to emails and bingo. By the time you've given up trying to sort the duff ticket out, they'll have sent round the bailiffs, towed your car away and crushed it. Do that enough times to enough people and that should sort out road congestion. Oh yes...you'll still have to pay for the erroneous ticket :wink:


----------



## Adam (11 Jan 2007)

Shivers":19gtmiog said:


> why introduce a program to track you & pay tax you on distance traveled,how much more of a complicated system could they come up with,



Isn't the point that it charges more at peak times? You can't get the time specific flexibility by simply taxing fuel more.

Adam


----------



## Anonymous (11 Jan 2007)

dedee":fonh7lyj said:


> ps we don't actually have public transport anymore, do we? - isn't it all run by private companies who, by the very nature, have to make a profit?



Exactly, theres the rub. Same as with post office's, telephone boxes etc when it was public owned the busy places helped the quiet ones out, as soon as privatised, they were only interested in keeping up the profitable place's. I did at one time make use of public buses but gave up due to them being unreliable, overcrowded, dirty with vomit etc and eventually just walked or cycled to work-fine as it was only about a mile and a half. Darlington had the infamous "bus wars" with literally turf war among the competeing drivers racing about to get the passengers first :roll: Yet 12 or 15 miles away in the dales it was a different story, lone bus every 2 hours if your lucky.

Adam you make a valid point about moving closer to work but I expect theres plenty folks done that then been made redundant, or are on a short/flaky contract=> uncertainty about making that commitment. And where jobs are house price's are higher any way.

Are metro net and TFL running the london buses/tube nowadays? Back in the early 80's even then it was faster to go by bike, no cycle lanes as such, just take the bull by the horns and go for it. I was lucky only being involved in 2 accidents in 6 years (neither of which was my fault). I lived in Old Kent road, worked at London Zoo, an hour and a quarter by direct bus (53 if I remember rightly), 40 minutes by bike :lol: :lol:


----------



## Adam (11 Jan 2007)

I've got a better suggestion!!! If on the previous journey you engine was only running for 10 minutes, they should install some electronics which stops you starting it for 10 minutes. Really inconvenient when in a hurry. That would cut out all the "nip" to the shops brigade. Could be 10 minutes, or 5 minutes, but it would cut out a lot of school-runners which are only a few minutes anyway.

Adam


----------



## RogerS (11 Jan 2007)

Adam":blknlv68 said:


> Guys all this talk is about their being no alternative to driving to work. There is, move closer to work.
> :wink:
> 
> Adam



Adam...driving your red monster I can appreciate why you'd want to move closer to work   Seriously, like many other posts here, your point is well-made.


----------



## Jake (11 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":3p4q49lb said:


> Jake you seem a bit mixed up because you started out by saying you think road pricing is a good idea then belly aching because you already have it in London and are certain to get it even worse.



I wasn't bellyaching, I support the congestion charge, even though I'm always getting fined for forgetting to pay the damn thing. I was simply pointing out that we are hardly going to be immune from it.



> Is it the case that Londoners are already being observed by spy camera's and being charged so much pence per mile? Or are you talking about the _congestion charge_ that the "chiselling crook" inposed, motivated by nore than a hint of class war mentality? :lol: :lol:



Yes, it's a crude form of the same thing.



> It seems what your really saying is that its a good idea nationally.



I think it is going to be necessary nationally - try a motorway at peak hours and imagine doubling the amount of traffic on the road?



> Your assumptions are skewed?? Your still avoiding the issue that in your metropolitan idyll you have long established reliable and practical alternatives to a personal car and if someone persists in car use in London then there is possibly a case for expecting them to pay out for the privelidge. But there are vast swathes of the UK where public transport is thin to non existent on the ground. People living those places simply wont have the option to use an alternative means of transport.



You are assuming that rural roads will be priced the same (or at all) as trunk roads and motorways. That isn't necessarily the case, and isn't the current proposal, so it's just scaremongering. The DoT study proposed a scale from 2p per mile to £1.34 a mile on the busiest motorways.



> I dont need to do traffic flow projections (civil servant non-job).



Right, and who will you blame when the roads seize up completely with too much traffic for the network to cope with because no-one thought to think about it - the state and its incompetent non-job civil servants, perhaps? The problem is that traffic is growing and will continue to grow. Either you ration access somehow, or you cover more of the country in tarmac, which encourages more traffic, and so on.



> I want to know why yet more tax is about to be demanded of the motorist, as I am not convinced it has any value in helping the congestion, pollution etc only to get more cash for wages and pension's.



The proposal is revenue neutral, as I understand it. Road tax and fuel duty would either go or be reduced greatly, and the road charges set at a level which would replace that. The aim is to keep the numbers of vehicles on the road at any one time to a number which the network can cope with



> And if you do a one in one out system it sounds fine in theory but what about the place where they have the lights or whatever to let people in it'd be worse than ever even if it was clear in the places where the congestion was reduced :wink: :lol:



Well, quite. So how are you going to ration road use? Or do you want us to just keep building more and more ever wider roads?


----------



## StevieB (11 Jan 2007)

Adam wrote:



> Guys all this talk is about their being no alternative to driving to work. There is, move closer to work.



Wish it were that simple Adam. I have a job that doesnt exist in Kent - I have to work in London. Now since a 2 bed mid terrace house with a concrete 10x10 garden goes for £300k where I work (Tooting - not even somewhere posh!) and I can get a 4 bed semi for that in Kent where I live, with 2 kids would you honestly choose to live in cramped conditions and walk to work or live in reasonable conditions and commute?

As with anything there is no easy answer, the term SNAFU springs to mind - Situation Normal, All ***** Up. It wont be sorted in my lifetime, and probably not my childrens either. now if only we could harness all the hot air coming out of Whitehall..... :wink: 

Steve.


----------



## Adam (11 Jan 2007)

StevieB":67fgl2ze said:


> Adam wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True, but I did say move closer, as a partial solution even if you can't get right close. Take a 5 mile ride on a pushbike from Tooting, and you cover a seriously large number of properties, some of which is affordable. Take a 20 mile ride, and you cover large areas in and around london and the south east. 

On a similar note, people drive 10 minutes to the train station every morning???

Sure not everybody wants to ride a bike in these areas. I used to be a member of a car share (I was "last in"), at least 5 members, but as one worked part time, and one had a people mover it was not often that I couldn't get a lift (they had a 4 persons in a normal car policy), and the person who suffered was the "last in" member of the group. So often as not, I had a full car each way to work. We had a fully worked out credit system if someone missed a day, took a weeks holiday etc. 

Even when I moved jobs, I still managed to partially participate in the share, by leaving my car at their car park, and doing the forward section of the journey on my own. Or dropping them off part way on my "driving" day. 

Even my previous job I found someone to car share with. He wasn't such an attentive driver though. Shouting "Stop" as he approaches a busy roundabout is not something a passenger is supposed to do. 

Thinking about it even the job before i managed to find a share.

Adam :shock:


----------



## StevieB (11 Jan 2007)

> Take a 5 mile ride on a pushbike from Tooting, and you cover a seriously large number of properties, some of which is affordable. Take a 20 mile ride, and you cover large areas in and around london and the south east.



Tried that - used to live 5 miles from Tooting and did pushbike to work - it was a small place called Epsom, that extremely expensive area with the racecourse where they hold the Derby every year :lol: :lol: :lol: Sadly a two bed upstairs flat with no garden also wasn't ideal for children, shame because I really liked living there.

I compromise now and go by motorbike every day - doing 65 miles each way on a pushbike is enough to test even the keenest EcoWarrior :wink: 

Steve.


----------



## NickWelford (11 Jan 2007)

Jake":3iztazmx said:


> The proposal is revenue neutral, as I understand it.



Is there any such thing? Quite apart from the exorbitant costs of running any government scheme, the money grasping ones in power (of any persuasion) will want to fund other pet ideas they have..... not to mention their solid gold severance pay and pensions


----------



## Jake (11 Jan 2007)

They can already do that with fuel duty and VED. I'm sure the same people who object on that ground will say they already do. Changing the mechanism doesn't alter the potential for that.

Re costs, yes, fair point, but not that great compared to the costs of building more roads.


----------



## Anonymous (11 Jan 2007)

Jake":o99nvl5w said:


> Well, quite. So how are you going to ration road use? Or do you want us to just keep building more and more ever wider roads?



I thought it was _you_ who said road acess had to be rationed, so why are you asking _me _how it should be done :roll: Are you a civil servant? You havent yet given a solid sudgestion as to how roads _should_ be rationed apart from some sort of filter system which would only create worse bottleneck's at the acess points. What your trying to avoid is the reality that road rationing will favour well off people who are in a position to pay (or have it paid for them by employer/civil service/local council etc), or people who have alternative public transport options available to them. It would definately discriminate against folk who are not well off, or are living in location's with no alternative modes of transport.
Granted maybe they _will_ have a range of price's for different regions or types of roads. But EG even if your driving round say Peckham/Walworth/Camberwell green/Lewisham/New Cross/Hither Green etc etc, they arent motorway or trunk type roads (are they?? maybe in the last 20 odd years they put a 6 lane higheway from Victoria to new Cross?? :lol: ), maybe you'd get to pay only 2p a mile on _them_, but you would STILL have decent available transport option's wouldnt you. Rural folk might "Only" have to pay 2 p a mile for the privelidge of driving on their idyllic lanes :roll: , but they dont have any realistic alternative, and are unlikely to ever get one no matter what you might say about road pricing stimulating commercial investment in transport, theres small number of people spread over large area's=commercially unattractive. And they'd still be paying road tax/fuel duty as well. As for revenue neutral what sort of jargon is that :roll: ? If you think the fueltax and road fund tax would be scrapped or reduced you must be mistaken the govt _wants more money_, this scheme gives them a convenient opportunity to grab it :wink: 
Dont get me wrong, I recognise there is a problem with road over crowding etc BUT I think this chiselling crook/green type rheoric about road rationing is unfair, ill conceived and designed only for a bit of short term political popularity.
Cheers Jonathan


----------



## chiba (11 Jan 2007)

You chaps have an easy life. If I drive to my mother-in-laws across town, which is 40km away, it costs me almost exactly 10 quid each way in tolls. :shock:


----------



## woodbloke (11 Jan 2007)

Seems like a sound reason not to visit the MIL :lol: :lol: - Rob


----------



## Anonymous (11 Jan 2007)

chiba":2zvs2n8h said:


> You chaps have an easy life. If I drive to my mother-in-laws across town, which is 40km away, it costs me almost exactly 10 quid each way in tolls. :shock:



Double whammy eh Chiba :lol: :lol: Do you have mother in law jokes in Japan :wink: :lol:

Where do all those 10 quid's go and what do they pay for :?: 
Cheers Jonathan :lol:


----------



## Jake (11 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":22z7ckql said:


> I thought it was _you_ who said road acess had to be rationed, so why are you asking _me _how it should be done :roll:



Are you saying it doesn't need to be done? Have you tried the M25 or the M6 at rush hour lately? And imagine that with twice as traffic. 

You have to plan for the future, you can't just stick your head in the sand. 



> Are you a civil servant?



No.



> You havent yet given a solid sudgestion as to how roads _should_ be rationed apart from some sort of filter system which would only create worse bottleneck's at the acess points.



If you recall, I'm the one saying that road pricing is a sensible way of rationing a scarce resource (i.e. one where the demand is greater than the supply), which is going to get scarcer. 

You are the one who opposes it, so you should be proposing an alternative way of rationing use. The only one I could think of was, as you say, obviously a very stupid one. 



> What your trying to avoid is the reality that road rationing will favour well off people who are in a position to pay (or have it paid for them by employer/civil service/local council etc), or people who have alternative public transport options available to them. It would definately discriminate against folk who are not well off, or are living in location's with no alternative modes of transport.



So does VED and fuel duty.



> Granted maybe they _will_ have a range of price's for different regions or types of roads. But EG even if your driving round say Peckham/Walworth/Camberwell green/Lewisham/New Cross/Hither Green etc etc, they arent motorway or trunk type roads (are they?? maybe in the last 20 odd years they put a 6 lane higheway from Victoria to new Cross?? :lol: ),



I'm sure the A2 will be near the top of the scale, and I'm willing to bet that London roads would on average be much more expensive than rural ones.



> maybe you'd get to pay only 2p a mile on _them_, but you would STILL have decent available transport option's wouldnt you. Rural folk might "Only" have to pay 2 p a mile for the privelidge of driving on their idyllic lanes



And pay less fuel duty and VED.



> :roll:



I find those smilies really quite offensive, you know. "rolls eyes"



> they dont have any realistic alternative, and are unlikely to ever get one no matter what you might say about road pricing stimulating commercial investment in transport, theres small number of people spread over large area's=commercially unattractive.



2p a mile doesn't seem bad to me. Even with a 20 mile commute that would be 80p a day - much less than the bus fares for that distance.



> And they'd still be paying road tax/fuel duty as well.



That isn't the tentative proposal at present, so you are objecting to a chimera of your own making.



> As for revenue neutral what sort of jargon is that :roll: ?



It means they would only raise the same amount of tax from drivers under the road charging scheme as they do now under fuel duty/VED. It's political jargon, but it is a lot faster to say or type. 



> If you think the fueltax and road fund tax would be scrapped or reduced you must be mistaken the govt _wants more money_, this scheme gives them a convenient opportunity to grab it :wink:



That may be the case in the end, but they can just as well do that through VED and fuel duty. That makes "them" wrong - not the policy of road charging.



> Dont get me wrong, I recognise there is a problem with road over crowding etc



What are we going to do about then?



> BUT I think this chiselling crook/green type rheoric about road rationing is unfair, ill conceived and designed only for a bit of short term political popularity.
> Cheers Jonathan



I think that popularity is the last thing that this policy will achieve - it is much more likely to be extremely unpopular - that doesn't mean it is wrong.

Cheers, Jake


----------



## dedee (11 Jan 2007)

Since when is owning a car a good given right? 
The idea that it is the less well off who will suffer is also the reason given for not increasing taxes on air travel. 

Could it be argued that this idea of everyone, no matter what their financial standing, has the right to everything that the well off can easily afford is surely part of a much wider problem that our materialistic consumerist society is facing?

Something has to be done to cut the number of cars on the roads making it more expensive is one solution. 

I favour tougher planning laws that would demolish out of town shopping centres and force a return of the local shops.

I would also favour abolishing all private schools - is private education a peculiarly English thing? IMHO my local school run congestion problem is centered around the local private schools eg parents who can afford private education can also afford to live miles away from the school

I would also favour tax breaks for companies that stayed put rather than encouraging them to up sticks and move to areas prepared to offer them cheaper rates etc. 

I'd force companies into using video conferencing. Certainly around here ( and I work for one of Europe's top IT services companies) Vid Conf is barely used. The kudos of having and justifying company cars means there is little incentive not to travel.
Come to think of it I'd ban company cars (as a perk).

I would also favour proper secure cycle lanes in urban and city environments. Two feet (600mmm) wide green painted tarmac does not encourage me to use a bicycle.

I'd also support laws that restricted car ownership to those who had a garage or designated off road parking.

All of the above, even to me sounds draconian, but something very radical has to be done. My fear is that neither politians nor society as a whole would stomach such a redical approach. 

Andy


----------



## Nick W (11 Jan 2007)

Surely if its supposed to be congestion charging then it should be related to how many mph below the local speed limit (or max speed of your vehicle - I ride a moped :roll: ) you are travelling at?

In principle I'm (reluctantly) for it as somthing has to be done. Just so long as big brother doesn't know where I've been and when. Its a privacy thing.


----------



## Jake (11 Jan 2007)

Nick W":206vza4w said:


> Just so long as big brother doesn't know where I've been and when. Its a privacy thing.



I can understand that, but if you have a mobile in your car, they can already track you if they need to (like the police did with at least one of the Norwich murder victims). There need to be safeguards.

The speed thing is a good idea - but you'd pay through the nose for road-works!

The speed thing is what I fear most - automatic tickets. They'd need to readdress the motorway limits...


----------



## mudman (11 Jan 2007)

I'm not going to bother sorting out all the quotes and what-have-you, I'll just make a few points.

I'll start by saying that in all this I do suspect the government's motives. I don't trust them to do what they say and I don't think that they will be able to put this in place anyway.

So, revenue neutral? I don't think it is possible. The chap putting the petition up was quoting a cost of £60 billion pounds. That is a phenominal amount that will go to private companies. To be revenue neutral, the tax will have to raise enough money to provide the private companies running the scheme with a profit and to cover the cost of the fuel duty and VED if removed. The equation is already out of balance and then you add in the companies recovering the £60 billion cost and you can see that we will all end up paying substantially more.

I don't have a problem with paying for road use to discourage congestion, but, there *has* to be an alternative. If there is no viable alternative to getting into your car, then you still have to use the car at peak times and the congestion will remain with the result that you have to pay more tax.

The answer to most problems in this country at the moment is to tax it out of existence. But this doesn't work as people either have no alternative or find a way around it. An example of this was the cost of scrapping your car. The £100 it costs to scrap your car is added at the end of its life when it is owned by a person who probably can't afford that £100. So, what happens? It ends up in a quiet patch of countryside, burnt out and the result of a bogus insurance claim. The same will happen with charging for bin bags, the increase in fly tipping will be horrendous. But I digress.

We simply need to get the cars off of the roads and there are better ways of doing this. Two that come immediately to mind are:

1. Invest the £60 billion in recreating a public transport infrastructure that can get people quickly and efficiently from home to work. 
2. Encourage British management to allow people to work from home if they want. This is easy to do. Most companies are already geared up for it. The trouble is that they so distrust their staff or need to have a little visible empire that they won't do it.


----------



## Nick W (11 Jan 2007)

And 
3. Encourage British management to move their businesses away from the current population hot spots.


----------



## Scrit (11 Jan 2007)

Jake":1qwkm1p9 said:


> Right, and who will you blame when the roads seize up completely with too much traffic for the network to cope with because no-one thought to think about it - the state and its incompetent non-job civil servants, perhaps? The problem is that traffic is growing and will continue to grow. Either you ration access somehow, or you cover more of the country in tarmac, which encourages more traffic, and so on.


You are presupposing that the stick is the only method which will work, a common misconception in our society in this country, I feel. Where is the national and regional planning policy which would stop and reverse the trend for out of town shopping which can only be accessed in a car? Where is the political will to set-up "walking omnibusses" to get children to and from school as opposed to the Chelsea tractor milk run approach now prevalant? Where is the social responsibility in the governing classes to lead by example and make a show of using public transport at all times - as opposed to jetting off all over the place on a whim? Perhaps if we addressed the fundamental underlying issues more could be achieved

Scrit


----------



## Jake (11 Jan 2007)

Carrots are good as well, and I agree there is a bigger picture.

Road pricing is both stick and carrot, though. To call it a stick is only to look at the rush hour pricing. There's a carrot in the off-peak charges - that's the point of it.


----------



## mudman (11 Jan 2007)

dedee":3rw4uwwq said:


> Since when is owning a car a good given right?
> The idea that it is the less well off who will suffer is also the reason given for not increasing taxes on air travel.



Problem is that it will be the less well off that will suffer. They will still have to get to work at a certain time in a certain place. There will be no alternative as public transport is ineffective. They will not be able to move closer because even if house prices aren't too high now, they will soar around the outskirts of towns when charging comes in.


> Could it be argued that this idea of everyone, no matter what their financial standing, has the right to everything that the well off can easily afford is surely part of a much wider problem that our materialistic consumerist society is facing?


I think a lot of society's problems are related to this. But in the past the only way to achieve them was to work hard. Now, we all expect to pay peanuts for everything and this is creating a whole different set of problems.



> Something has to be done to cut the number of cars on the roads making it more expensive is one solution.
> 
> I favour tougher planning laws that would demolish out of town shopping centres and force a return of the local shops.


I would go along with that. We are seeing the death of town high streets which is a terrible thing. 


> I would also favour abolishing all private schools - is private education a peculiarly English thing? IMHO my local school run congestion problem is centered around the local private schools eg parents who can afford private education can also afford to live miles away from the school


I'm sorry but that is a specious arguement. You are saying that private schools cause congestion because the rich kids are ferried in by their rich parents. The real issue is that the terrible state of the public educational system causes a lot of parents to try to do the best for their children by taking them out of the state-run sector and placing them in a school that will deliver the sort of education that they had or whished they had as children. A lot of parents endure real hardship to do this and I find such attitudes really quite annoying. (And yes, I have taken my son out of the state system).


> I would also favour tax breaks for companies that stayed put rather than encouraging them to up sticks and move to areas prepared to offer them cheaper rates etc.



I would go along with this but maybe go a bit further and have some of the industry that was killed off to be put back into communities to allow them to work near to their homes.



> I'd force companies into using video conferencing. Certainly around here ( and I work for one of Europe's top IT services companies) Vid Conf is barely used. The kudos of having and justifying company cars means there is little incentive not to travel.
> Come to think of it I'd ban company cars (as a perk).



I don't think it would make much difference to the bigger picture and I really hate to hear people using words like 'force'. We are supposed to have freedom of choice.


> I would also favour proper secure cycle lanes in urban and city environments. Two feet (600mmm) wide green painted tarmac does not encourage me to use a bicycle.
> 
> I'd also support laws that restricted car ownership to those who had a garage or designated off road parking.


I can see that one going down a storm. Not a very fair idea I'm afraid. 


> All of the above, even to me sounds draconian, but something very radical has to be done. My fear is that neither politians nor society as a whole would stomach such a redical approach.
> 
> Andy


----------



## dedee (11 Jan 2007)

Barry,
I can see linking the congestion problem with the failure of our education system is pushing the debate in a different direction. My question as to whether private education (on such a scale) is unique to the UK is however, I think, quite valid. 
After all if we did not have any (or fewer) private schools the state system would be greatly improved. It is sort of chicken and egg. Is the reason that (some of) our state schools are so poor beacuse we have an alternative? Is it possible that we have (some) poor teachers in state schools because all the good ones go to private schools?

I've benefited from a private education but my wife (french) just cannot understand why we have this two tier system.

As for freedom of choice. Alongwith such freedoms come certain responsibilites and companies participating in effectively encouraging staff to travel when there are technical (possibly even cheaper) alternatives is not being responsible. In my office alone I would suggest that at least 20 people every day travel to another internal company location for a meeting that do not involve customers.

Andy


----------



## StevieB (11 Jan 2007)

> After all if we did not have any (or fewer) private schools the state system would be greatly improved



Erm, how exactly? 

Are you suggesting all public school pupils are brighter than state school ones so the collective average would increase?

Are you suggesting public schooling is that much better in quality that all ex-public school teachers would work in the state sector and raise standards?

I cannot think of any conceivable reason for the state system improving if public schools are abolished. (I am state school educated for reference).

Steve.


----------



## Anonymous (11 Jan 2007)

Jake":37n4orrl said:


> I'm sure the A2 will be near the top of the scale, and I'm willing to bet that London roads would on average be much more expensive than rural ones.



Are you sure thats not a chimera of _your_ own making? I find it astounding that people still give the benfit of the doubt to these sort of proposal's and trust that the govt doesnt have dodgy motive's, but maybe I'm just a battle scarred cynic??.



dedee":37n4orrl said:


> Since when is owning a car a good given right?
> The idea that it is the less well off who will suffer is also the reason given for not increasing taxes on air travel.



Whoever said it was? Of course its easy to say nice little sayings like that when your in London with the well established variety of transport infrastructure in place, and you have the luxury of choosing one or the other....but thats already been discussed. Car ownership could well become a _State_ given right instead.

What are we going to do about it?? Well if charging _is_ adopted, then charge the highest whopping road tax in places (Like London sorry jake and Dedee) where there IS very good transport options other than cars, and if people still insisit on using cars then they should pay top rate, but in places where there is no practical or useful transport alternatives, pay next to nothing road charge wise. Charging should be proportionate to availability (or otherwise) of a realistic alternative. Wether you like it or not though, road rationing is a discriminatory action and someone will lose out and it wont be the well heeled. Do you think people endure rush hour traffic for the sheer pleasure of it? They have to get to and from work, make deliverie's etc Maybe it should be like WW2 "is your journey really necessary"

Jake, Sorry if my use of the :roll: word is offensive, your use of step by step quote quote quote I find tiresome, but I apreciate thats _your_ style. probably I just get riled at my perception of metropolitan liberals and some of the cack handed schemes they come up with and its my way of releasing a bit of agro. No genuine offense was intended  Yorkshire people are blunt and to the point, this is often construed as ignorance or rudeness but we are lovely people really :lol: 
cheers Jonathan  

PS And we still havent found an explanation as to why the govt needs to keep track of all vehicle's at all times, regardless of the charging scheme?? Why do the 2 need to be linked. If they can track you with existing technology (mobile) why bring in a new one??


----------



## dedee (11 Jan 2007)

Steve,
I can see that I am in danger of getting out of my depth here and am beginning to regret raising my head.

I think what I am trying to say is that there are other countries that do not have an alternative to state education and their academic standards do not seem to suffer as a result (colloquial evidence rather than statistical facts so flame proof suit on).

A look at the just published league table (another can of worms I know) certainly shows that state schools are right up there with the independants. And of course I suspect that many private school teachers would not want to work in the state sector due to poor discipline, investment, facilities etc but I do believe that the fact that we do have an alternative is part of the reason for declining standards in the state sector.


I'll crawl back into my hole now.

Andy


----------



## Jake (11 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":3o10nhhc said:


> Are you sure thats not a chimera of _your_ own making?



It was a guess - as was clear.



> What are we going to do about it?? Well if charging _is_ adopted, then charge the highest whopping road tax in places (Like London sorry jake and Dedee) where there IS very good transport options other than cars, and if people still insisit on using cars then they should pay top rate,



That's going to happen, I'll bet on it (see above).



> but in places where there is no practical or useful transport alternatives, pay next to nothing road charge wise. Charging should be proportionate to availability (or otherwise) of a realistic alternative.



I agree with that.



> Do you think people endure rush hour traffic for the sheer pleasure of it? They have to get to and from work, make deliverie's etc Maybe it should be like WW2 "is your journey really necessary"



Part of the point of it is to redistribute traffic timewise, to give economic incentives to businesses to change work hours, etc, to reflect the actual costs of congestion.



> Jake, Sorry if my use of the :roll: word is offensive,



Do you roll your eyes at people when you don't agree with something they say when you are talking to them? If not, then it probably isn't an appropriate emoticon to use.



> your use of step by step quote quote quote I find tiresome, but I apreciate thats _your_ style.



Tiresome maybe, but not offensive, I hope! 



> probably I just get riled at my perception of metropolitan liberals and some of the cack handed schemes they come up with and its my way of releasing a bit of agro.



Erm, OK. Sorry to have riled you and thanks for the stereotyping.



> No genuine offense was intended  Yorkshire people are blunt and to the point, this is often construed as ignorance or rudeness but we are lovely people really :lol:



None taken, it just seems a bit unnecessary.



> PS And we still havent found an explanation as to why the govt needs to keep track of all vehicle's at all times, regardless of the charging scheme?? Why do the 2 need to be linked. If they can track you with existing technology (mobile) why bring in a new one??



I guess because the mobile network wasn't designed for it, and it takes some complex trigonometry to work out where the mobile was from the signal strengths. Probably isn't accurate enough to discriminate between a motorway and a B road running alongside it, and probably a hundred other reasons.


----------



## StevieB (11 Jan 2007)

No problem Deedee, flame proof suit not needed 

Steve.


----------



## RogerS (11 Jan 2007)

dedee":3a12bi2u said:


> Since when is owning a car a good given right?
> The idea that it is the less well off who will suffer is also the reason given for not increasing taxes on air travel.
> 
> Could it be argued that this idea of everyone, no matter what their financial standing, has the right to everything that the well off can easily afford is surely part of a much wider problem that our materialistic consumerist society is facing?


Agreed - ban budget airlines



> Something has to be done to cut the number of cars on the roads making it more expensive is one solution.


Agreed - but it has to factor in the availability or not of alternative viable public transport



> I favour tougher planning laws that would demolish out of town shopping centres and force a return of the local shops.


Spot on. That way we might encourage a return to the appreciation of quality and choice over cheap tatty food/stuff/build 'em high/sell 'em cheap.



> I would also favour abolishing all private schools - is private education a peculiarly English thing? IMHO my local school run congestion problem is centered around the local private schools eg parents who can afford private education can also afford to live miles away from the school


Not having children I don't really feel qualified to comment. The only observation I have is that if parents feel that they need to go to the lengths that they do in order to go send their to the school (private or state) of their choice then surely something is seriously wrong with the education system in this country and an indictment of whichever government is responsible.



> I would also favour tax breaks for companies that stayed put rather than encouraging them to up sticks and move to areas prepared to offer them cheaper rates etc.


Good idea but open to abuse surely? Quick ring to the Dept. of Stay-put Incentives to say you're thinking of moving to Wherever and bingo...loads of money to stay put.



> I'd force companies into using video conferencing. Certainly around here ( and I work for one of Europe's top IT services companies) Vid Conf is barely used. The kudos of having and justifying company cars means there is little incentive not to travel.


Never took off, did it? Not sure why.



> Come to think of it I'd ban company cars (as a perk).


How do you define 'perk'? 



> I would also favour proper secure cycle lanes in urban and city environments. Two feet (600mmm) wide green painted tarmac does not encourage me to use a bicycle.


Agreed - provided that we have an increased police presence on foot and on the pavements and any cyclist found cycling on the pavement has their legs chopped off and that cyclists are taxed and carry insurance like other road users.



> I'd also support laws that restricted car ownership to those who had a garage or designated off road parking.


Definitely don't agree with the last suggestion. The major reason why the SE is low in water is that they've concreted over their front gardens to park cars. I would revoke permission for all off-road parking other than a driveway to a garage and insist that grass or earth/garden was reinstated.



> All of the above, even to me sounds draconian, but something very radical has to be done. My fear is that neither politians nor society as a whole would stomach such a redical approach.
> Andy



Agreed something radical does need doing but no-one is going to do anything or agree anything and the polar icecaps and greenland are going to melt. The one piece of video footage that has had the greatest impact on me and made me go round switching off light bulbs everywhere was the video of the polar bear on Planet Earth struggling to make its' way across the very slushy ice covering ...courtesy of man.


----------



## Adam (11 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":340fct58 said:


> (Like London sorry jake and Dedee) where there IS very good transport options other than cars,



Only comment on that is have you ever tried traveling on the tube at rush hour? You get to a platform only to find its full. The train arrives. Its full. Everyone in front pushes on anyway. No point not getting on as someone will simply barge you out the way to get on the next full train. I've found that if you get both hands inside the carriage, hang on, and simply heave your way in, using every last ounce of strength, you can just squeeze in without getting nipped by the doors. Then, as you are at the edge, you can stand for the next 30 minutes with your head cocked to the side due to the curve on the roof. Then, approximately every 2-5 minutes, it slows down violently, the person next to you falls against you and clumps you in the ribs with their elbow, but that pales into insignificance to when the doors open, and despite you thinking it impossible to get another soul in as your face is smeared against the window, another 30 people try to get on.

Very good transport links yes. Very good public transport for users? Probably not. 

Adam


----------



## RogerS (11 Jan 2007)

Adam":1drkvd4c said:


> mr spanton":1drkvd4c said:
> 
> 
> > (Like London sorry jake and Dedee) where there IS very good transport options other than cars,
> ...



Ah.. I can see you're a novice, Andy. The cognoscenti wait with their backs to the wall at the back of the platform. Then, just as the doors are starting to close, they run full pelt and throw themselves into the carriage. Momentum carries them inside enough to compress the other passengers sufficiently for the doors to close behind them.


----------



## Anonymous (11 Jan 2007)

Jake":197x9u0r said:


> Do you roll your eyes at people when you don't agree with something they say when you are talking to them? If not, then it probably isn't an appropriate emoticon to use.



I do actually and if I think someone's a daft **** I'll say so too :roll: 

Steroetype schmeryiotype I couldnt care less about that loony left PC jargon speak. I thought a stereotype was when you have 2 photo's to get a 3d picture?? I was talking about the loonies that desigened this proposed road charging policy when I mentioned metrollopitan liberal's, not your good self, but hey if the cap fit's :wink: 

Cheers Jonathan :lol:


----------



## StevieB (11 Jan 2007)

Ah, a particular bug bear of mine - the continued reference to global warming and how it will be the end of the earth, its all mans fault and the entire planet is doomed as a consequence.

Sure, I agree there is global warming. Is it man made? Almost certainly man hastened, but man made is more debatable. There have been 7 mass extinctions in earths history, wiping out over 95% of all known life. Think of the dinosaurs (which is the one everyone can relate to). That is a global catastrophe, the polar ice caps melting is mere inconvenience in comparison. Since we are coming out of the last ice age still (which is why we have ice caps at all) global warming is simply part of the Earths natural cycle. 

Man has hastened a natural event, and now we have realised, switching off a few lights, adding a wind turbine and driving an eco car is not going to make a jot of difference. Notice how destruction of the ozone layer doesnt get much of a mention nowadays? Thats a man made problem but people do not relate to it - they like their fridges and TVs. Sadly most of the hype over global warming is commercially driven - getting people to pay more for 'green' goods (organic farming is a classic example). 

A far bigger issue than global warming is petrol availability - petrol may run out in your lifetime (or be so expensive and difficult to extract it amounts to the same thing) but global warming is not going to fry you or put you under 50 feet of water. For that reason and that reason alone the effect of greener cars and alterative fuels is a good thing.

Steve.


----------



## woodbloke (11 Jan 2007)

StevieB wrote:


> petrol availability - petrol may run out in your lifetime



Current _known_ reserves of oil _may_ be exhausted within the next 30 years or so.....coal reserves have a slightly larger shelf life at about 200 years. However, with the rapid increase in the economies of the Far East, who knows how long reserves of fuel and other natural resources will last? - Rob


----------



## cant-weld-wood (11 Jan 2007)

i remember years ago the said they wherev going to increase the price of fuel and then the following year do the same again and get rid of the dreaded road tax that people will not be able to avoid the tax.
fuel was arond £1 a gallon then its now about £5 a gallon.
if they go the toll route on motorways and main roads like they have said 
it will do one thing all traffic will go across the country side to avoid these roads.
we only have one way to avoid the silly plans of this goverment and that is crossthe channel and live over there cheaper / cleaner and a lot less tax


----------



## mudman (11 Jan 2007)

woodbloke":3m3b2p2x said:


> StevieB wrote:
> 
> 
> > petrol availability - petrol may run out in your lifetime
> ...



Apparently China will require 2.5 billion tons of coal this year.
There are 250 million tons left in the ground in South Wales.
That means we could keep China going for a month and a bit.
Sort of makes you realise just how voracious China is. I must admit to wondering how long things can continue in this vein and whether everything will sort itself out (globally speaking) when the rescources inevitable run out.


----------



## woodbloke (11 Jan 2007)

Mudman wrote:


> everything will sort itself out (globally speaking) when the rescources inevitable run out.


That doesn't really bare thinking about...my own view is a bit of doom laden one in that I think we may have probably reached the 'rotate' point, or will do very shortly when 'our' global activities have got to the point when the ills created by them cann't be undone....please someone tell me if I'm completely out of my tree, or if I'm more or less, sort of gurbling in the more or less right direction :? - Rob


----------



## mudman (11 Jan 2007)

woodbloke":1n7nsbyj said:


> Mudman wrote:
> 
> 
> > everything will sort itself out (globally speaking) when the rescources inevitable run out.
> ...



I'm afraid my view is also very pessimistic. When I said that I think everything will sort itself out, I meant that the planet will recover. It's just that we and the majority of the flora and fauna on the planet won't.

I'm not sure what can be done to prevent it. I'm sure that there is a solution, there always is to every problem. The trouble is that mankind rarely has the desire as a whole to do anything and frequently is led in the wrong direction when he does decide to do something.

OMG, where's that bottle? :?


----------



## Scrit (11 Jan 2007)

woodbloke":39xjnqff said:


> ....please someone tell me if I'm completely out of my tree, or if I'm more or less, sort of gurbling in the more or less right direction :? - Rob


No you're not - and it's really depressing me!


----------



## DomValente (11 Jan 2007)

Here's alittle fuel for the fire.

If you own more than one car the second has to be electric, LPG or hydrogen.
Scrap the road tax and increase fuel prices,so you only pay for the mileage you actually travel, yes some would suffer but it would certainly help many pensioners who rarely use their cars.
Stop Tfl charging motorcycles a congestion charge,which is in the offing, what next bicycles?
As a matter of interest the evil 4by 4 known as Lexus runs on batteries until it reaches 30mph why can't proper cars have this.
Oh and trust me travelling in London on public transport is one of the most disgusting, uncomfortable and thoroughly disheartening of experiences.


----------



## StevieB (11 Jan 2007)

Hi Dom,

Charging motorbikes the congestion charge is not going to happen - all the cameras are forward facing! A good tip I got from a courier once was to wrap your chain and padlock round the back seat of your motorbike and let the chain and lock dangle over the numberplate 'accidently'. Not that I would ever condone such an activity  

Sadly I think the human race will survive any planetary destrution - if we were one of the two species reckoned to be able to survive a nuclear winter (along with cockroaches) I dont think global warming is going to finish us off :?


----------



## cant-weld-wood (11 Jan 2007)

it is all down to greed the priminister wants another pay rise
they could save money a quick and easy way send them assylem seakers back home and stop fighting other peoples wars for them
you know wot i mean


----------



## MrJay (12 Jan 2007)

No, not really.



DomValente":36inhpd2 said:


> Scrap the road tax and increase fuel prices,so you only pay for the mileage you actually travel



I'd buy that. No need for oodles of car tracking space planes - just plonk the levy on fuel.

Also, when I'm king of my new country public transport will be free at point of use. Does that make me a Communist?


----------



## Colin C (12 Jan 2007)

DomValente":3p92xs5n said:


> Here's alittle fuel for the fire.
> 
> I
> Scrap the road tax and increase fuel prices,so you only pay for the mileage you actually travel



I dont think this would be done as they would not be able to put both up at the same time or am I mad :roll:


----------



## Shivers (12 Jan 2007)

Another thought on this is how on earth are they going to regulate fuel used on farm equipment,building site generators,mopeds,motorcycles,different types of fuels,--diesel petrol,lpg,this system they propose is going to be an unheard of headache,surely just straight ahead fuel tax is 10 times easier & less wasteful.


----------



## Scrit (12 Jan 2007)

MrJay":1g6mrnlg said:


> Also, when I'm king of my new country public transport will be free at point of use. Does that make me a Communist?


No, comrade, just a good socialist


----------



## Jake (12 Jan 2007)

MrJay":2ka25bd0 said:


> No, not really.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's preferable from the point of view of carbon emissions, but does nothing to redistribute traffic in time to reduce congestion problems, which is what they are trying to do via road pricing.


----------



## Shivers (12 Jan 2007)

Jake":3czu6axe said:


> MrJay":3czu6axe said:
> 
> 
> > No, not really.
> ...



At tollgates in europe & the states they have a barcode system whereas if you travel frequently through the toll you dont have to wait in line --you just go through the lane marked ez pass & the camera reads the barcode,the system is already set up with cameras ect, why cant it be cross converted to read who's in the city/or which part of the city---to avoid these rediculous compulsory tracking devices.


shivers.


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 Jan 2007)

Isn't it a bit ironic that one of the objectives of the EU is to enable the free movement of people and goods, yet the Government's thinking on transport policy seems to be to restrict movement :? :? 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Shivers (12 Jan 2007)

Paul Chapman":1g6kjazk said:


> Isn't it a bit ironic that one of the objectives of the EU is to enable the free movement of people and goods, yet the Government's thinking on transport policy seems to be to restrict movement :? :?
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



yeah only criminals have vans.


----------



## MrJay (12 Jan 2007)

Jake":32ictpr3 said:


> MrJay":32ictpr3 said:
> 
> 
> > DomValente":32ictpr3 said:
> ...



Only if it encourages people to use less fuel...

If people want to sit in queues all day, let 'em. Personally I think sending people a bill for trying to get to school/work on time is a bit past the line where reasonable starts and finishes. Sitting in endless traffic going nowhere when you've somewhere to be comes with it's own stick.

Talking of which - if School were to start at, say, 10:00 instead of 9:00..?


----------



## Jake (12 Jan 2007)

I think the point is to try to encourage that kind of thing.


----------



## MrJay (12 Jan 2007)

The use less fuel thing or the other thing?


----------



## Shultzy (12 Jan 2007)

Have you noticed that when the school are off, the level of traffic reduces dramatically. Where do they all go to, they can't all go on holiday.

What I worry about is where are they going to store all of the data that will be generated for road pricing. I would suspect that each car would have to upload the data every 30 secs. That could be 50 million uploads per minute.

Another problem is how do we check the details. At the moment if you dispute a gas bill, the reading is on your meter so you can prove how much gas you have used. Will we have any data in the car to compare.


----------



## Jake (12 Jan 2007)

MrJay":v6ichf9j said:


> The use less fuel thing or the other thing?



This kind of thing..



MrJay":v6ichf9j said:


> Talking of which - if School were to start at, say, 10:00 instead of 9:00..?



Except for businesses rather than schools.


----------



## Jake (12 Jan 2007)

Wow, no wonder your eyes roll so much.


----------



## Jake (12 Jan 2007)

I hate speed cameras as much as the next person.


----------



## Newbie_Neil (12 Jan 2007)

Hi all

By all means have a grown-up discussion about road pricing, but please keep politics out of it.

Political content _*will be deleted *_.

The rules of this forum specifically exclude the discussion of anything political.

Thanks
Neil


----------



## Scrit (13 Jan 2007)

Shivers":1zsh7xrf said:


> yeah only criminals have vans.


You speak for yourself

White van Scrit


----------



## Shivers (13 Jan 2007)

Scrit":20z6b0xp said:


> Shivers":20z6b0xp said:
> 
> 
> > yeah only criminals have vans.
> ...



nice one scrit --how nice of you in this thread to read that out of context purely for your own benefit,--
Please explain to me how i worded it so wrong that you had to give me that response!!!

BTW --i don't own a white van(nothing wrong with owning one anyway)

misconception on your behalf methinks(Why is this)--do you have a hardon for me ?.


shivers.


----------



## ByronBlack (13 Jan 2007)

I've recently had a few discussions about this with my circle of acquaintances and my only response to the introduction of tracking devices in our cars used to price our journeys is;

Civil Disobedience. In particular, I would personally find a shady techie to either remove the device or find a way for it to send junk data to the servers.

It's a disgusting idea from start to finish and just increases the whole big-brother society we currently live in and will do nothing but make poor people even more poor as they can't avoid to travel to work. What happens then? More people on benefits as it will be better for them to stay at home and do nothing than pay through the nose to drive to a job.

Viva La Revolution!!


----------



## woodbloke (13 Jan 2007)

MrJay wrote:


> public transport will be free at point of use


Couple of years ago we had a holiday in the States, part of which was in Hawaii. The public bus system over there is such that every journey, no matter how far cost $2.....so if you decided to get on the bus to go 100yds to the beach, it will cost you $2. If you decide to do a complete 50 mile circular tour of the island, it will cost you $2. As long as you stay on the bus you could go as far as you liked for a couple of bucks...fantastic, and loads of Alf's 'Murricans used the system. I know that there is a vastly different fuel tarrif :shock: in the US of A but it might be an idea worth a punt....or not? - Rob


----------



## Alf (13 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":2fllh5qb said:


> ...its fair game to attack _any_ govt or their policy's, and have full and free debate on any contentious issue.


It certainly is, and there are many dedicated internet groups and forums available for such attacks - suggest you use one of them.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Shivers (13 Jan 2007)

Alf":2grme5sr said:


> mr spanton":2grme5sr said:
> 
> 
> > ...its fair game to attack _any_ govt or their policy's, and have full and free debate on any contentious issue.
> ...



The petition site is at a gov website--whereas you have to give email --then confirm through email hyperlink,---the statement at the site says that only 150 previous signee's can be seen at any given time ---HUH!!!!!,this means that in the time it takes you to sign--then check email (ie next day)the chances are that you will not see your name when you go back & check the list--as over a 150 people have pushed your name into oblivion,think about it!!!!,which also means that you cant survey the list of signee's also --whether it be 100 or 11,000,001 people,if the site was to act fair the whole list would be available for intrested brit citizens,what does this stink of---yep you got it,B/B operating proceedures ran from no other than a gov website ---someone tell me is that also in the anti protest laws that if you want to make a point via class action --you have to do it through a gov website???,--brings to mind the latest president whom miraculously won 2 elections.

Modernday enhanced democracy in action.

if you dont believe me --go to the site.


shivers


----------



## RogerS (13 Jan 2007)

Shultzy":y0ciar8l said:


> What I worry about is where are they going to store all of the data that will be generated for road pricing. I would suspect that each car would have to upload the data every 30 secs. That could be 50 million uploads per minute.



Don't worry, Shultzy. It will be project managed by the NHS 'big bang' IT supremo (still can't remember his name) who will have been conveniently moved sideways after the NHS new central spine crashed spectacularly resulting in the total and irrecoverable loss of data. 

The road charging data will be spread across 35 other government computer systems (since this model will have been found to work superbly for the ID card system). C*apita will be the chosen operator (after a carefully managed tendering and procurement exercise) and you should get your visit from the bailiffs for unpaid road charges a few months later. 

Your actual bill, although for the inaccurate and stupendous sum of 35 million Euro, and subsequent correspondence was lost in the new postal delivery system following the total closure of all rural post offices and the complete privatisation of the Royal Mail.

Meanwhile, all the new building for the London Olympics will have been completed on schedule and to budget.


----------



## Freetochat (13 Jan 2007)

Shivers - I disagree with your comment, I signed the petition and followed through with the email link, and saw my name in the first 15.

With reference to free public transport, I studied transport management and from my research can say that the cost of transport is not the primary reason for lack of take up. An experiment was carried out where all buses were free for six months. This created very little change in passenger numbers. Routes, times and frequency were then changed and a major change in numbers occurred. Reducing travel time, running buses at the correct time, and improving routing was the key.

The major cost in buses is wages, hence larger and larger buses. The ideal would be smaller buses, covering more routes, with less stops.

Many european cities run 'taxi buses', which are as numerous as taxi's but are 15 to 20 seater mini-buses. I always found those to be a good system, and very efficient.


----------



## Shivers (13 Jan 2007)

Freetochat":1i258a0r said:


> Shivers - I disagree with your comment, I signed the petition and followed through with the email link, and saw my name in the first 15.
> 
> With reference to free public transport, I studied transport management and from my research can say that the cost of transport is not the primary reason for lack of take up. An experiment was carried out where all buses were free for six months. This created very little change in passenger numbers. Routes, times and frequency were then changed and a major change in numbers occurred. Reducing travel time, running buses at the correct time, and improving routing was the key.
> 
> ...



You just shot down my conspiracy theory--HUH!!!.

I can't see where free buses make a difference if they don't turn up on time or go between the right areas,
Having said that our buses aren't to bad here in norwich(although theres always grannies complaining all the time in the local papers).
From what i'm finding out from this thread around the rest of the country it's pretty bad,--i don't think taxing people of the roads is the best idea,part of freedom to me is to be able to travel within my own country without hinderence--everybody that is born on this earth should have the following thats in this link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy 
We are slowly being driven back to being peasant class again.

this is my unfortunate sad opinion.

shivers.


----------



## RogerS (13 Jan 2007)

I just signed up and my signature appeared at the bottom of the list (where I'd expect it). Hit refresh and another 9 had been added! That's about 5 a second or 300 a minute!


----------



## Alf (13 Jan 2007)

I was referring to equivalent groups to this - but devoted to discussion of politics. A quick Google should find more than enough to choose from.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Alf (13 Jan 2007)

It doesn't matter whether you think I'm wrong or not, it's in the forum rules. By posting you agree to abide by those rules. It's not a matter of choice, it's just how it is. Mature people know how to abide by the house rules I hope?

Cheers, Alf


----------



## woodbloke (13 Jan 2007)

Mr S - I'm afeared I have to agree completely with Alf on this one. Whilst the topic discussed is undoubtably absorbing, folks were tip toeing twards the political line and just nudged over it....not on. Forum rules is forum rules. FWIW I used to belong to a very dubious organization (no names, no pack drill) that totally banned any discussion of _any_ sort on politics or religion - Rob


----------



## DaveL (13 Jan 2007)

woodbloke":2rywxo7j said:


> Whilst the topic discussed is undoubtably absorbing, folks were tip toeing twards the political line and just nudged over it....not on. Forum rules is forum rules.



I think Rob has it in a nut shell there, so reaching for my mod hat I am going to lock this thread.


----------

