Petition against car tracking

[Xest]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

[Gandelf]

A few points I'd like to add:-

To reduce congestion we need fewer drivers on the road. Even with a road tax system charging people for every mile (or part thereof) they drive, I think a lot of people will still pay it if they can afford to. If the number of drivers continues to increase, then the congestion may improve at first when the law comes into force, but eventually will get worse again.

Road travel tax would unfairly discriminate against those who are less able to pay. Therefore, such a system will cause resentment when those who can't afford the charges see those who can, driving their expensive cars. If there is to be a system to reduce congestion, it should be a system that forces everyone to have to use public transport for some or all of the time.

You can't compare air travel and road travel on equal terms with regards to taxation. Motorists already pay Road Tax and tax on fuel. So motorists pay enough already in taxes, let alone the costs of MOTs, repairs, insurance etc. Those who fly are using a service and pay a one-off fee each time. They don't have to tax planes, have them repaired or take them to be refuelled, so to speak, therefore their costs are less in comparison to motorists.

Nationally, the public transport system is not up to scratch enough for everyone to benefit from using it. In some areas, using public transport can save time over using your own vehicles. In other areas, using public transport is less reliable and takes longer than using one's own vehicle. Therefore, forcing motorists to use public transport by introducing travel tax will in an extremely large number of cases cause resentment because their lifestyles are taking a retrograde step.

Security. In some areas, having to walk to bus stops or train stations will increase the risk of physical attacks and abuse. When you're in your car, you are in a safer environment. Of course, people do get attacked whilst they're in their cars, but most people are attacked when they are out walking. How do you know that the person waiting next to you in the bus stop queue is not a mugger or something?

[OohhoO]

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!

As you so often do you apply a modicum of what you think of as logic in the most minimal time possible to a complex situation about which you obviously know very little (Swiss local transport), ignore the parts which don't fit your arguments & therefore logically (in your eyes) end by dismissing the whole as a weak argument & generalizing.

Your arguments are based on your logical perception of a situation which might be utterly inapplicable to the reality of a local situation, wether it's Zurich or somewhere in the UK the same principle applies. It might work in some places but not in others, like here. We have trains & trams & a very few local buses. Buses from the outlying towns to Zurich & back via the motorway would be impossible on grounds of infrastructure alone, let alone politics, logistics & financing. We would need a bus every 5 minutes from our town centre to zurich city centre from 05:30 to 08:30 to cope with the numbers of commuters. Multiply that by 20 towns & probably 200 villages on our side of the lake alone... & that's the direction with the smallest population centres... There are reasons why we don't have buses between the various population centres & they're pretty convincing. The whole idea of buses replacing cars is not something which could realistically even be considered here really. Switzerlands infrastructure has been built over many decades for the purpose of trains complimented by private cars.

[Xest]

To reduce congestion we need fewer drivers on the road. Even with a road tax system charging people for ever mile (or part thereof) they drive, I think a lot of people will still pay it if they can afford to.

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.

Road travel tax would unfairly discriminate against those who are less able to pay.

This is arguably the weakest argument that keeps coming up. It's like saying Microsoft discriminates against poor people because XBox 360s are expensive and so they can't afford them. We don't live in a communist state.

You can't compare air travel and road travel on equal terms with regards to taxation. Motorists already pay Road Tax and tax on fuel. So motorists pay enough already in taxes, let alone the costs of MOTs, repairs, insurance etc. Those who fly are using a service and pay a one-off fee each time. They don't have to tax planes, have them repaired or take them to be refuelled, so to speak, therefore their costs are less in comparison to motorists.

Uh, you're kidding right? £163.40 tax on a £214 flight.

Nationally, the public transport system is not up to scratch enough for everyone to benefit from using it.

Nationally? You mean from your experience in stoke-on-trent, which is in the top 5 worst run local authorities in the country. You can hardly compare a worst case area against the rest of the country.

Therefore, forcing motorists to use public transport by introducing travel tax will in an extremely large number of cases cause resentment because their lifestyles are taking a retrograde step.

Yes, god forbid we even consider taking a hit in our day to day lifestyles to help look after the planet as a whole.

Security. In some areas, having to walk to bus stops or train stations will increase the risk of physical attacks and abuse. When you're in your car, you are in a safer environment. Of course, people do get attacked whilst they're in their cars, but most people are attacked when they are out walking. How do you know that the person waiting next to you in the bus stop queue is not a mugger or something?

It'll also reduce the chance of dying in a car crash too. Bit of a silly argument.

OohhoO - I wasn't applying your comments to Switzerland, I was applying to the UK where I have traveled pretty extensively using buses, trains and coaches (hell even trams in some places like Sheffield!) without much trouble.

[OohhoO]

Have you ever been to Brighton?
They have busses there that belch out more fumes every time they pull away from the bus-stop than my car probably does in a year!
You can wait an hour for a bus which is supposed to come every 15 minutes & then 4 will come together.
If you're really lucky one of them might even stop & let you on!

[Sharkith]

then what exactly is the problem with the system being used to track individuals using the existing legal framework anyway?

I can think of quite a few resons why this is a problem. As such for example we have yet to see a miscarriage of justice where someone was convicted through inferences drawn on the basis of current surveillance methods. Yet the surveillance is increasing at an amazing rate. Just because we haven't had that miscarraige yet doesn't mean there hasn't already been one. These things take time to ascertain and evaluate yet we continue to expand surveillance without stopping to think about what we are doing to society.

So it is very relevant. As a concern people should listen to it and then outline and allay those fears. It is an opportunity to have a discussion - I still don't see any reason not to be mistrustful.

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.

I agree with you on most of your points but like I said above I don't believe such a wholesale change should be made so easily. If congestion charging is so bad on certain roads why not just extend the current technology we have in London for example?

Why Xest do we need to go for the full metal jacket ?

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.

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.

yes I thought this was how they would start it - once more I still need to read the report. Like I said above I am not fully aware of the details but I am very cautious. I am seriously concerned about why we need a national tracking system on this when we have already implemented congestion charging zones with ease in London.

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.

Polls are quote a useful tool for government to guage opinion I cannot see them ignoring them likewise I doubt they will be swayed by them. They know they have an awful long way to go on this. It is one of the most unpopular things they have tried to introduce to date (apart from the Iraq war ofc).

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.

Your completely off the mark here. It is not speculation. It is government policy to privatise where they can. It is their commitment going as far back as the Third way and as for the Tories they would sell our roads to another country if they could get away with it. The privatisation of local services continues even though a lot of it has not been privatised yet. So on this one Xest your definitely off mark. You cannot have this argument in a bubble devoid of historical precedent just look at policy and history and you can be certain once the system is there they will start to consider the private option. The evidence is certainly there and your ignoring it is not giving your argument any credibility.

You also failed to comment on the fact that this system introduces a whole new area of responsibility for our police force to consider. So I am unsure what the exact benefits are going to be.

I agree congestion is a major problem. I am less worried about the environmental debate. So whilst it is a controversial option I don't think its the only one that has been adequately explored.

The costs of a journey on public transport are increasing in price well above inflation and thus are not actually a real alternative for many people. Last year we had high oil prices First bus company puts in a 20% rise in price in response and doesn't drop it once the oil price comes down. You figure out who the real assholes are here.

Private public transport is seriously shit. If you don't believe me go and ask those poor bastards who live in London just how bad the price rises have become. I left London three and a half years ago and the price of a single ticket on the bus is now over 50% more and that is in 3 years. So pretending things are ok with the buses is frankly bullshit it might be ok in Yorkshire where they cannot rise prices but in the place where it really matters they are royally fucking over consumers and what does the government do Xest it proposes a new way to fuck them over in their cars.

why aren't we allowed or encouraged to work from home?
why do we have to have this gimmicky national tracking scheme when we can simply extend current congestion zones?

As for the current road tax system Gandy it is more regressive than pay as you go because it is a flat rate for everyone. So I don't see that as a good alternative argument.

[Xest]

Have you ever been to Brighton?
They have busses there that belch out more fumes every time they pull away from the bus-stop than my car probably does in a year!
You can wait an hour for a bus which is supposed to come every 15 minutes & then 4 will come together.
If you're really lucky one of them might even stop & let you on!

But do the buses spew out more fumes than 15 cars which is a much more fair comparison?

I can think of quite a few resons why this is a problem. As such for example we have yet to see a miscarriage of justice where someone was convicted through inferences drawn on the basis of current surveillance methods.

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

I think you're either on the same note as me on most things either that or complete opposite where we'll have to agree to disagree, however:

You also failed to comment on the fact that this system introduces a whole new area of responsibility for our police force to consider. So I am unsure what the exact benefits are going to be.

I'm not convinced it'll really be that big a deal for the police force, they already look for things illegal in cars such as false plates and so forth, it really wouldn't be a big deal to check this kind of thing too. In fact, I'd imagine satellite imaging/tracking combined would be capable of spotting cars that aren't registering their position and automate the task somewhat. This system could also potentially prevent car crimes like joyriding somewhat also if it did end up being a tool for the police.

I agree congestion is a major problem. I am less worried about the environmental debate. So whilst it is a controversial option I don't think its the only one that has been adequately explored.

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.

Private public transport is seriously shit. If you don't believe me go and ask those poor bastards who live in London just how bad the price rises have become. I left London three and a half years ago and the price of a single ticket on the bus is now over 50% more and that is in 3 years.

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.

why aren't we allowed or encouraged to work from home?

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.

[Gandelf]

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

[OohhoO]

But do the buses spew out more fumes than 15 cars which is a much more fair comparison?

Brightons busses probably spew out more than about 1500 normal cars. It's gas-mask or asphyxiation. In fact, getting rid of them would probably get rid of an unbelievable amount of Britains air-polution!

[Gandelf]

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.

Exactly. As long as I can afford to pay the taxes, I don't mind the money being invested in worthwhile causes

This is arguably the weakest argument that keeps coming up. It's like saying Microsoft discriminates against poor people because XBox 360s are expensive and so they can't afford them. We don't live in a communist state.

No, you're totally wrong! Wealth is not always down to the success you make of your life. Some people inherit wealth, some people earn it through their own hard work. Conversely, those people who have "poor" parents are not going to inherit any substantial wealth, but they still can be successful. If you've got more money, then of course you're going to pay the road tax. You're using your wealth to buy advantage, when other people can't. It's totally and utterly wrong! You can't deny that if there is going to be less congestion on the roads in the future, then everyone must contribute to it through using their personal transport less. It should not (and I hope it never will be) down to the fact that those who can't afford to pay should be the ones who are forced off the roads. It isn't Communism... its Common-sense! It's like saying that those who can afford medical treatment to save their lives deserve it, because they have the money. It's a totally selfish and uncaring attitude. Everyone should be in the same boat.

Uh, you're kidding right? £163.40 tax on a £214 flight.

What are you smoking? I don't fly to work everyday. I drive. On average, each person take 3 flights per year. By your figures, that's £490.20 per annum! Motorists pay far more than that in taxes and everything else.

Nationally? You mean from your experience in stoke-on-trent, which is in the top 5 worst run local authorities in the country. You can hardly compare a worst case area against the rest of the country.

There you go again... using your privileged position to keep the down-trodden under foot. You're elitest, that's what you are! I don't live in Stoke through choice, but the fact that I do means that I shouldn't have laws forced on me that are based on a load of Governmental nonsense about what's average!

It'll also reduce the chance of dying in a car crash too. Bit of a silly argument.

Well I have to agree with you there. You drive more, you are more likely to be involved in a fatal accident. I guess life is just too full of risks to do anything! Pfft.