Sharkith wrote:You are in the position of not knowing if this information could then be used under various systems of law to enable the legitimate tracking of individuals for a specific purpose.
Ignoring the fact that it's possible to implement the system in a manner whereby it's anonymous and hence this information can't be used, let's just say for the paranoid amongst us that the system is a great big tracking system and you're right, then what exactly is the problem with the system being used to track individuals using the existing legal framework anyway? The system is irrelevant, if you've done something such that the law enforcement agencies have permission to track you they can do it now anyway - existing camera networks can recognise and follow number plates, satellites can already track not only vehicles, but even people so again you're talking about something that's entirely irrelevant to the proposal. I agree with you that these breaches of privacy are perhaps too far but that's an entirely different issue, it's one that already exists regardless of this system.
Sharkith wrote:You are also unable to be sure that at a future date the system becomes less of a 'plug it into your cigarette lighter' and un plug it when you need to, because if it is so easily disabled as you indicate then surely there will be people running around without one in the first place?
Well of course there will be, there's bound to be a whole black market thing surrounding it but it'll rely on the same methods of detecting this kind of thing that already exist, it's no different to cars that are illegal due to being not roadworthy, blacked out/false number plates, driving without insurance and so on.
Sharkith wrote:You don't know that at some point it will be forced by law to become an integral part of of anyone's car so that the car cannot run without it working.
You'll never be able to prevent the car running without it physically. Whilst you can put a legal framework in place to force this in it's that that you can then oppose with a worthwhile debate. More realistically I think you'll see the device as optional and those who opt out of it will simply pay an annual sum instead as an option instead of being tracked. The system will likely be designed such that it's more cost effective to accept the tracking system for the most part, but if you're really so paranoid as to not trust it then you can always pay the annual sum or whatever instead.
Sharkith wrote:I think you are remarkably uncritical of the potential problems here.
I think you don't understand the technical details of how it could be implemented so as to ensure that half the problems people mention aren't really problems. There's a whole lot of misinformation surrounding the system spread by those paranoid about it and it's really clouding the issue - I've seen many people unable to make the connection between the highest costs being related to congested areas and not the entire country in this thread alone, there's plenty of evidence here that most opposing it simply do not understand it fully.
Sharkith wrote:Remember 70% of people in two seperate polls simply rejected these plans (that is simply not just the petition speaking).
Oh you mean that poll that is either yes or no with no "I'd accept it if...". The poll giving people the option of accepting it if certain conditions were met actually had a majority in support. You can't win an argument by providing only half the story however you're not really different to most other people opposing the system in that the oppositions argument is based entirely on severe twists to the truth as to the real factual reasons for and workings of the system.
Sharkith wrote:It is not unfounded speculation Xest they privatised the rail system and are tripping over themselves to privatise the tube system and the hospitals. Not speculation this is reality. I think you just need to stop and try to balance this out.
Because they've privatised some systems still has no relation to privatising the road system, it IS speculation. For every system they've privatised (phones, rail) and so forth I can give you plenty more that they haven't - just look at the vast ranges of council services for a good starting point.
OohhoO wrote:I don't know how it is in the UK but here around Zurich the trains are all chock full between 05:30 & 08:30, & the swiss rail network has already stated that Zurichs train capacity has been reached despite being constantly expanded. There is no more room for further expansions.
If people can get into work in cars now, they can sure as hell get in on public buses, because public buses transport more people in less road space than cars do, it's yet another weak argument really - if the UK's transport system couldn't handle transport of people by public transport, then there's sure as hell not enough room for people to be driving in in their cars right now!
Satyn wrote:I usually get there faster on foot than with the bus or the tram
Then you're using public transport for the wrong things, it's exactly the type of journey we can do on foot but don't that is wasteful.
Most people tend to avoid public transport because they don't like having to sit around other people but ironically this is probably one of the best reasons why more people catching the bus and train to work would be a good thing, it'd be one of the best tools out there for forging communities back together. Do you really think you'd wonder about that bearded asian guy walking down the street wearing a rucksack if you caught the bus and nodded "Hi" to him every morning on the train?
The reality is that people have become anti-social and lazy, very much so in the UK and rising use of private transport is a massive contributor to both these problems.
(Xest's post answers the pollution issue anyway)
I i guess you are one of the 'most' men 
