Blairs reply to road pricing petition.
21 February 2007, 12:15 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from all the points raised above, it will be a matter of time before insurance companies get in on the act and get access to the data from the GPS.
"Sorry sir, your premium has to go up 250% because you drove over 70mph on the M40 three times last month".
"Sorry sir, your premium has to go up 250% because you drove over 70mph on the M40 three times last month".
21 February 2007, 12:24 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True - which is another reason I made the point above, that it's not the intended use of the infrastructure that's necessarily the problem. It's all the uses to which the tracking and charging infrastructure could be put.
21 February 2007, 12:48 PM
#33
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still firmly of the opinion that congestion is self-regulating. Let it build up, the train / bicycle / bus will become more attractive and congestion will stop increasing. Say your journey to work was 2 hours for 5 miles, then you would find an alternative. No-one is going to use public transport which is slower, less convenient, more expensive, etc.
Trying to reguate it through costs is folly: unless the objective is to make money and take a BIG step foward to the big brother state....in which ase it's genius!Cottonfoo: something to think about; you may well get rogered by Mr Brown regardless of what partitions you sign, but that doesn't mean to say that you can't shout about not liking it as he's warming up the KY!!!
The ONLY certainty is that if everyone says nothing, nothing changes!
Ns04
21 February 2007, 12:48 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have just posted the following to minister ladyman:
Dear Minister,
Why would you need to track my every road movement by GPS? Does that not constitute an excessive invasion of my privacy under EU Human Rights legislation? Why are you unable or unwilling to institute a cheaper and simpler national network of toll booths on our motorways, dual carriageways and arterial A roads instead?
**
anticipating a flim-flam weasel response. the only way to kill the bill is for all us who can see where this is going to generate so much static in the public domain and the media that they daren't follow it through for fear of a counter-strike at the ballot box.
Dear Minister,
Why would you need to track my every road movement by GPS? Does that not constitute an excessive invasion of my privacy under EU Human Rights legislation? Why are you unable or unwilling to institute a cheaper and simpler national network of toll booths on our motorways, dual carriageways and arterial A roads instead?
**
anticipating a flim-flam weasel response. the only way to kill the bill is for all us who can see where this is going to generate so much static in the public domain and the media that they daren't follow it through for fear of a counter-strike at the ballot box.
21 February 2007, 01:03 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
[QUOTE=Holy Ghost;6680374]
Why would you need to track my every road movement by GPS? Does that not constitute an excessive invasion of my privacy under EU Human Rights legislation? Why are you unable or unwilling to institute a cheaper and simpler national network of toll booths on our motorways, dual carriageways and arterial A roads instead?
**
QUOTE]
NO NO NO NO!!!!! You've fallen for it!! They suggest a 'big brother' spy in the sky approach which we all agree is too big brother but instead of saying we don't want road pricing full stop you've already comprimised and gone for softer option - WHICH GETS THEM THE REVENUE STREAM, AND CONTROL, THAT THEY WANT. Governments use this approach all the time and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker!
Dave
Why would you need to track my every road movement by GPS? Does that not constitute an excessive invasion of my privacy under EU Human Rights legislation? Why are you unable or unwilling to institute a cheaper and simpler national network of toll booths on our motorways, dual carriageways and arterial A roads instead?
**
QUOTE]
NO NO NO NO!!!!! You've fallen for it!! They suggest a 'big brother' spy in the sky approach which we all agree is too big brother but instead of saying we don't want road pricing full stop you've already comprimised and gone for softer option - WHICH GETS THEM THE REVENUE STREAM, AND CONTROL, THAT THEY WANT. Governments use this approach all the time and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker!
Dave
21 February 2007, 01:15 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Higher tax on fuel I would be happy with - the more you burn the more you pay, simple. And if high enough, it would discourage people doing unnecessary journeys.
Road pricing stinks, so they now want to penalise me for driving to work, track my movements etc...
Blair's comments on improving public transport - laughable - how many times have they promised this. Currently would take me over an hour on public transport to go 5 miles to work!
Some good ideas on these thread though - free school buses - that would help round towns.
Road pricing stinks, so they now want to penalise me for driving to work, track my movements etc...
Blair's comments on improving public transport - laughable - how many times have they promised this. Currently would take me over an hour on public transport to go 5 miles to work!
Some good ideas on these thread though - free school buses - that would help round towns.
21 February 2007, 01:21 PM
#37
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ns04
21 February 2007, 01:26 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=hutton_d;6680465]
Why would you need to track my every road movement by GPS? Does that not constitute an excessive invasion of my privacy under EU Human Rights legislation? Why are you unable or unwilling to institute a cheaper and simpler national network of toll booths on our motorways, dual carriageways and arterial A roads instead?
**
QUOTE]
NO NO NO NO!!!!! You've fallen for it!! They suggest a 'big brother' spy in the sky approach which we all agree is too big brother but instead of saying we don't want road pricing full stop you've already comprimised and gone for softer option - WHICH GETS THEM THE REVENUE STREAM, AND CONTROL, THAT THEY WANT. Governments use this approach all the time and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker!
Dave
**
no i haven't dave. they want the eye in the sky for the same reasons they want biometric D cards. they want to rack, stack, pack and track the population and bleed them white in the process: it's the anti-libertarian holy grail of political, security and taxation control - and technology will enable it at some point. and boy oh boy is this government anti-libertarian. the EU has also got to justify the cost of investment in the vanity project that is galileo.
i've got no problem with sensibly toll boothing our roads as long as car tax goes in the bin; existing fuel prices are rationalised; greener propulsions like LPG and hydrogen are heavily developed/incentivised; the 2 million cars illegally using our roads are either removed/crushed and/or their owners compelled to cough up; and the treasury is overruled with the revenue generated invested solely in improving road and public transport infrastructure.
Why would you need to track my every road movement by GPS? Does that not constitute an excessive invasion of my privacy under EU Human Rights legislation? Why are you unable or unwilling to institute a cheaper and simpler national network of toll booths on our motorways, dual carriageways and arterial A roads instead?
**
QUOTE]
NO NO NO NO!!!!! You've fallen for it!! They suggest a 'big brother' spy in the sky approach which we all agree is too big brother but instead of saying we don't want road pricing full stop you've already comprimised and gone for softer option - WHICH GETS THEM THE REVENUE STREAM, AND CONTROL, THAT THEY WANT. Governments use this approach all the time and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker!
Dave
**
no i haven't dave. they want the eye in the sky for the same reasons they want biometric D cards. they want to rack, stack, pack and track the population and bleed them white in the process: it's the anti-libertarian holy grail of political, security and taxation control - and technology will enable it at some point. and boy oh boy is this government anti-libertarian. the EU has also got to justify the cost of investment in the vanity project that is galileo.
i've got no problem with sensibly toll boothing our roads as long as car tax goes in the bin; existing fuel prices are rationalised; greener propulsions like LPG and hydrogen are heavily developed/incentivised; the 2 million cars illegally using our roads are either removed/crushed and/or their owners compelled to cough up; and the treasury is overruled with the revenue generated invested solely in improving road and public transport infrastructure.
21 February 2007, 01:46 PM
#43
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about people who take their scoobies out for a blast on quiet roads in the early hours, for example? Using lots of fuel, unnecessary journey etc... Hardly causing congestion though!
We pay huge amount of tax on fuel already.
The real issue that no one seems to have raised here yet is why is there such a gap between the revenue already raised by taxation of motorists and investment in the public transportation system?
Maybe if we got that sorted, all these silly ideas about congestion charging would dissappear!
Ns04
PS What do those stars mean?!?!?!?!?!
Is the truth out there??
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 21 February 2007 at 01:48 PM.
21 February 2007, 02:17 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hands up who thinks they do any significant number of 'unnecessary' journeys!
21 February 2007, 02:22 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We live 4.5 miles (shortest route) from my daughters school. This is by single track and unclassified roads. Only the last 200 yds or so in the village where the schools is has a pavement. While it is physically possible to walk or cycle this distance each day, it's practically not do-able. It would take me a couple of hours to walk there, and I'm pretty sure a 5 year old would not be up to it. Not to mention the safety aspect of walking on roads without pavements. I'm not sure what your point is, but from my point of view, traveling to school by car is the only option at the moment.
21 February 2007, 02:39 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Haven't got to read it all, but I can't be the only one thinking this is all reverse phsychology?
Let the public get all bitter and twisted about useage charging. Be all ambigous and pretend its something your really considering. Then when interest begins to flag, hold your hands up and say "Hey, we listened and we decided we won't introduce the system"
That gives them the excuse to hike road tax and fuel duty through the roof and if anyone complains say well we had to do something.
I personally believe its too complicated and too expensive to install and run so the government are just using it as a future excuse as to why current taxation methods sky-rocket.
Let the public get all bitter and twisted about useage charging. Be all ambigous and pretend its something your really considering. Then when interest begins to flag, hold your hands up and say "Hey, we listened and we decided we won't introduce the system"
That gives them the excuse to hike road tax and fuel duty through the roof and if anyone complains say well we had to do something.
I personally believe its too complicated and too expensive to install and run so the government are just using it as a future excuse as to why current taxation methods sky-rocket.
21 February 2007, 02:59 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all just pi55ing in the wind. It will come into force because the legislation requiring it has already been passed! It is the implementation of EU directive EU 2004/52
We do not have a choice, except for leaving the EU. Until you realise this fundamental point you will get nowhere
We do not have a choice, except for leaving the EU. Until you realise this fundamental point you will get nowhere
21 February 2007, 03:33 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since no one has responded yet, I'll throw my 2p's worth in.
We live 4.5 miles (shortest route) from my daughters school. This is by single track and unclassified roads. Only the last 200 yds or so in the village where the schools is has a pavement. While it is physically possible to walk or cycle this distance each day, it's practically not do-able. It would take me a couple of hours to walk there, and I'm pretty sure a 5 year old would not be up to it. Not to mention the safety aspect of walking on roads without pavements. I'm not sure what your point is, but from my point of view, traveling to school by car is the only option at the moment.
We live 4.5 miles (shortest route) from my daughters school. This is by single track and unclassified roads. Only the last 200 yds or so in the village where the schools is has a pavement. While it is physically possible to walk or cycle this distance each day, it's practically not do-able. It would take me a couple of hours to walk there, and I'm pretty sure a 5 year old would not be up to it. Not to mention the safety aspect of walking on roads without pavements. I'm not sure what your point is, but from my point of view, traveling to school by car is the only option at the moment.
My point is that people will doing anything to justify the use of their car. There will always be people who are forced to use cars for certain journeys (e.g yours) but the simple fact of the matter is that there are many instances when you could avoid using your car or at least reduce the amount of journeys. It becomes a state of mind - I live in a rural area so I must use my vehicle.
21 February 2007, 03:43 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all just pi55ing in the wind. It will come into force because the legislation requiring it has already been passed! It is the implementation of EU directive EU 2004/52
We do not have a choice, except for leaving the EU. Until you realise this fundamental point you will get nowhere
We do not have a choice, except for leaving the EU. Until you realise this fundamental point you will get nowhere
Besides, don't you think that Tony & co would pass up an opportunity to blame something massively unpopular that they neverless want to do on someone else?
21 February 2007, 03:51 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that people will doing anything to justify the use of their car. There will always be people who are forced to use cars for certain journeys (e.g yours) but the simple fact of the matter is that there are many instances when you could avoid using your car or at least reduce the amount of journeys. It becomes a state of mind - I live in a rural area so I must use my vehicle.
21 February 2007, 04:12 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand. It's just that from your post, you made it sound like anyone who takes their child to school could walk instead. This is not the case. It's not an excuse, it's just dictated by practicalities. I agree, there are many cases where it is practical to take other means of transport. It's just that we have gotten so used to popping out in our cars that the thought of walking/cycling instead (especially for short journeys) never gets a look in. It's this attitude that needs changing.
We get it in our village. Half the coffin dodgers moan about the lack of buses which only come twice a day and yet they never use them - I'm not suggesting that we can all make our cars redundant but there are practical ways of reducing the number of journeys.
21 February 2007, 06:15 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 February 2007, 08:06 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
My point is that people will doing anything to justify the use of their car. There will always be people who are forced to use cars for certain journeys (e.g yours) but the simple fact of the matter is that there are many instances when you could avoid using your car or at least reduce the amount of journeys. It becomes a state of mind - I live in a rural area so I must use my vehicle.
How about going for a drive, just for the pure pleasure of being out on the open road and enjoying your car, and driving for fun?
My car is only used for pure fun, 1-2k miles a year just for the fun of driving it. It's my hobby, I love fettling with it, then taking it for a nice long drive.
I don't mind paying the tax on fuel to use it, but not really interested in shelling out £600 for a black box so the Labour numpties can track me.
As for cycling to work, when I worked for other people many years ago my last job was 80 miles away - how long would it take to cycle there?
21 February 2007, 08:41 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to say, I agree with most of the realistic thoughts here.
Obviously Government Ministers earning 100K+ and probably receiving housing/vehicles & transport/meal tickets on expenses really do not have any idea what joe shmo earning a poultry UK (25K) average salary has to lay out to survive, adding travel costs to this makes life more difficult, less easy. The only thing remaining congested is our bank accounts!!
Thanks Tony!
Obviously Government Ministers earning 100K+ and probably receiving housing/vehicles & transport/meal tickets on expenses really do not have any idea what joe shmo earning a poultry UK (25K) average salary has to lay out to survive, adding travel costs to this makes life more difficult, less easy. The only thing remaining congested is our bank accounts!!
Thanks Tony!
21 February 2007, 09:16 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The government should consider how much it would cost the economy if the 1.8m people that signed the petition (and all the others that don't have web access), took their pickets to the streets and caused some serious congestion on a daily basis until the policy was scrapped. I would take to the streets if it would stop this moving forward.
Perhaps someone could set up another petition that can't be taken off-line by the PM, to see how many more votes come in?
Anders
Perhaps someone could set up another petition that can't be taken off-line by the PM, to see how many more votes come in?
Anders