Petition against car tracking

[Sharkith]

Jean Charles de Menezes? Of course he wasn't convicted, he was just shot dead instead

aye all because some bloke went to the loo instead of keeping an eye on his flat. :/

Well as mentioned previously, 20% of the UK's emissions are from cars so I think we have to accept cars are going to be hit somehow - what's more with the 30% emission, or in fact any emission reduction target I think cars are realistically going to have to take more than their fair share of a hit. Why? Because as stated previously, many car journeys are unnecessary and hence expendable, much more so than say industry emissions.

No doubt a lot of car journeys are unnecessary, we go to London once every month or so but we wlays travel off peak - the M1 is a nightmare. But the prospect of a journey that could cost over £90 as opposed to 40 at the moment is daunting especially when we do need to go see family.

Trains as an alternative are not an option because we have 4x single tickets and they are not always £8. Sometimes they are going for £20-30 and that is a good price. At the end of the day the rail network is not good not by a long shot - most European countries would laugh at us for the hotchpotch system we have and their systems are cheaper by far. Privatidsation was touted as the answer to ineffeciency and high costs - it failed - period.

My gf lives and works in London and has done for a while now so I'm there frequently, when I do go there it's a 2hr train ride down from Leeds (£8.45) which frankly I think is fantastic and a bargain, travelling around the city itself isn't that bad and it's really no worse than anywhere else if you also consider the higher wages there.

The fact is all transport costs in the SE are spirialling out of control. You can get tickets cheap but they can also cost you a lot if you have to take a journey that wasn't planned. The ticket systems are bizarre with a return ticket often costing less than a single ticket and some carriers in the SE don't or won't sell tickets onto other parts of the system. Your being a little bit biased in your reporting. The private rail network is costing us a lot and the service has not improved.

As I said before, because whilst some companies are, others really have no motivation or care to do so, this is one of many reasons why I'm for this scheme - it pushes the lazy into rethinking their businesses/lifestyles into ways that are frankly better for everyone given a bit of motivation.

Well things do have to change no doubt and it is going to cost money. Many of these reductions were internationally agreed treaties and we need to follow up our commitments. I just can't help but think this can be done differently by extending existing approaches. I dislike blanket schemes like this. But like I say I am open to looking into it.

[Monk]

If no one stopped driving but instead paid the taxes then it's still not too bad a thing because that's a shed load of money to invest in researching green technologies.

i just find it funny that i said that and i was shjot down, by urself, so in my opinion your arguements are no longer valid

[Lairiodd]

.... because there are a lot of car journeys that are unneeded

Says who ? Obviously, the person who took the trip thought it was worth it.

There are alot of things that we don't need to do. However, if people were only allowed to do things that need to be done, then there would be less incentive for them to work productively.

... therefore rather than harming the UK's economy by forcing some industries who do need to let off the emissions it makes sense to hit lazy people who drive when it's not needed.

Industry is no more important to the economy than recreation.

What about people who enjoy driving ... or maybe just enjoy it more than taking public transport ?

[Gandelf]

What about people who enjoy driving ... or maybe just enjoy it more than taking public transport ?

Exactly right! (not forgetting those who have to use their own vehicles because the public transport in their areas is inadequate, expensive or infrequent).

[Xest]

I think the Sharkith vs. Xest fight is definitely going in favour of Sharkith atm.

It's not a fight, it's a debate but apparently you wouldn't understand that. Still, you're dumb enough to think god made the world 6000 years ago so that shows how utterly irrelevant your opinion is.

Says who ? Obviously, the person who took the trip thought it was worth it.

There are alot of things that we don't need to do. However, if people were only allowed to do things that need to be done, then there would be less incentive for them to work productively.

But it's not that black and white is it? Some people like murdering but we stop them doing it because it benefits society as a whole. If cutting down motor journeys also benefits society as a whole by making the air we breathe healthier hence reducing things such as asthma and also hopefully preventing global warming which could cause flooding and such then surely it's the right thing to do?

[Ovi]

Industry is no more important to the economy than recreation.

What about people who enjoy driving ... or maybe just enjoy it more than taking public transport ?

Because we still live in a 9 to 5 culture people who drive for work generally have to travel at certain times. People who want to drive for fun can pick less busy times to drive.

That is why the government is looking at charges which are not only distance based, but also time and location based.

If you want to drive for fun then drive on fairly unused roads on Sunday's when it costs 1p per mile, instead of the main route into town at rush hour, when it costs £1.00 per mile.

Want to visit your family in London? Then go at the weekend when it costs 10p per mile, or a weekday evening for 20p a mile, not at rush hour when it costs £1.50 per mile.

It is all about trying to persuade people to think about the times and places they travel, not *just* about getting more money. It's about helping people realise the true costs of their journey's.

Yes there are other things that need to be looked at in conjunction with a scheme like this, Privacy & security issues, Stoke's transport system, where the money goes etc, but signing against something that hasn't had it's details finalised, or even really put into a presentable draft format, just because the design might be bad seems a little short-sighted. At least wait until we know some details before saying it sucks!

It's almost like saying WoW 2 sucks, so Blizzard shouldn't make it!

[OohhoO]

Yes there are other things that need to be looked at in conjunction with a scheme like this, Privacy & security issues, Stoke's transport system, where the money goes etc, but signing against something that hasn't had it's details finalised, or even really put into a presentable draft format, just because the design might be bad seems a little short-sighted. At least wait until we know some details before saying it sucks!

It's almost like saying WoW 2 sucks, so Blizzard shouldn't make it!

No it's not. It's like saying the government already scams more than enough off people & spends it on stupidity like nuclear weapons or the Iraq war or other things of absolutely no benefit to the common people without scheming up potentially sinister ways to scam even more.

... Still, you're dumb enough to think god made the world 6000 years ago so that shows how utterly irrelevant your opinion is.

Uncalled for.
Flaming on grounds of religious beliefs...
Ban yourself or something =/

[Lairiodd]

Because we still live in a 9 to 5 culture people who drive for work generally have to travel at certain times. People who want to drive for fun can pick less busy times to drive.

That is why the government is looking at charges which are not only distance based, but also time and location based.

If you want to drive for fun then drive on fairly unused roads on Sunday's when it costs 1p per mile, instead of the main route into town at rush hour, when it costs £1.00 per mile.

Right. Also, there already *is* a congestion charge, the congestion itself.

Anyway, I was responding to Xest calling the drivers lazy.

It is all about trying to persuade people to think about the times and places they travel, not *just* about getting more money. It's about helping people realise the true costs of their journey's.

However, there is an incentive to maximise the amount of money they take it.

Yes there are other things that need to be looked at in conjunction with a scheme like this, Privacy & security issues, Stoke's transport system, where the money goes etc, but signing against something that hasn't had it's details finalised, or even really put into a presentable draft format, just because the design might be bad seems a little short-sighted. At least wait until we know some details before saying it sucks!

It's almost like saying WoW 2 sucks, so Blizzard shouldn't make it!

Well, this is a discussion. If you wait until the details are finalised, you will have no effect on the outcome.

It would be like saying that WOW 2 will probably suck because X, Y and Z. This allows Blizzard to take that into account when designing the system.

[Ovi]

No it's not. It's like saying the government already scams more than enough off people & spends it on stupidity like nuclear weapons or the Iraq war or other things of absolutely no benefit to the common people without scheming up potentially sinister ways to scam even more.

No my analogy was closer, since we don't know how much it will cost, we don't know what other car related taxes will be reduced and we don't know what any extra cash, if any, will be spent on.

You are making an assumption that the system will increase tax revenues significantly, and that the government will be free to use as they like. Both assumptions may turn out to be correct, but until we do know more details it's very difficult to justify saying it's bad. Virtually every point against the charges in this thread ihas been based on assumptions of how it might be bad.

[Sharkith]

Yes there are other things that need to be looked at in conjunction with a scheme like this, Privacy & security issues, Stoke's transport system, where the money goes etc, but signing against something that hasn't had it's details finalised, or even really put into a presentable draft format, just because the design might be bad seems a little short-sighted. At least wait until we know some details before saying it sucks!

In fact I disagree with you here. Signing it indicates just how carefully the government will have to proceed. After all if the petition wasn't there would this thread exist? I think petitions like this are very important for our democracy, I also think polls are very useful.

Other than that I don't think I actually disagree with trying to reduce congestion at all. Just because we feel strongly it has to be dealt with does not mean any means are justified. Like I said once I have a bit of time I will definitely be reading up on it.

The simple facts are that the last Government strategy was a disaster I hope that history doesn't repeat itself. Look at the mess the Tories made of the train system by privatising it. It was such a disaster it killed people. Labour's biggest error is to do very little to improve the situation. So we need a policy that much is certain.

The same mistake that was made with railtrack could be made if they put a system in place that allows privatisation of the roads. As far back at the late 1980's the tories wanted to do that, this has been on the agenda before make no mistake it would be an economists wet dream. With road traffic signals etc. being integral to our transport I don't think we should move too quickly to enable that step to be taken.

Finally just to let you see why I am so opposed to privatisation I will give you an example. I try to get a bus home from work on a very wet day. Most days I walk because the bus service is really really shit where I live. I can often walk the 30minute walk before a bus even passes me. I pay £1.60 per journey. There is another bus service running to an area about 1 mile from where I live. It runs at 5 times the frequency yet I have to pay the same price for my service. I write to First Buses and ask them why I am paying the same price for a service that is 5 times less effective. They write back and tell me they are allowed to make a profit. I am not joking that is what they said. So don't come and tout to me that the system is good - it is shit. What is worse is that the company that provides such a shit service makes massive profits off the shit service.