Petition against car tracking

[Gandelf]

Inner city journeys, where bus systems are absolutely fine.

Your'e so totally out of touch with reality m8! I can speak from experience on this, knowing the totally crap bus service that exists in my City. If you don't believe me, come and live in Stoke and try to get a direct service to where you want to go to. Every bus goes into the City centre, where you have to change to get another bus to take you back out of the City to where you need to go to! Catching buses slows me down... I know, cos I've had to do it when my car is in for repairs. To get to work for 8.15am, I set out in my car at 7.45am. If I catch the bus, I have to set out at 7.00am. When I come home, it takes me 30 mins by car. By bus, it takes 1hr 15mins. Why? because there is no direct route. Don't get me wrong, there once was a service that went directly, without me having to change in the City centre, but they axed it! Now, you can't tell me that that's a ****ing improvement (using asterisked words which you like to do).

The public transport system HAS GOT TO BE TOTALLY OVERHAULED before they try to introduce congestion charges. They have to increase the number of services to something like they used to be. You have such a rose-tainted view of public transport because you live in a big city, where the system is really good. Try living in some of the backwater cities. I say that with respect, not because I'm trying to score a victory.

Has it ever occurred to you that many motorists don't mind sitting in traffic queues? That's because it's better than standing out in the cold waiting for buses that never turn up, or are late. Pollution from cars is fast becoming a non-entity, because devices such as catalytic converters remove all the harmful emissions. THE BIGGEST POLLUTERS ARE FACTORIES! So if motorists don't mind sitting in congestion and are causing less pollution, why should it be such a problem?

Why would they? The government is going to go ahead with it anyway (unless Tony Blair does a cry-baby u-turn which admittedly isn't too out of character for him) so there's little point right now.

He won't go ahead with it now. 1.5 million votes will ensure that, even if you weed out the invalid votes. More people have voted against it than Maggie Thatcher's Poll Tax and that was thrown out!

So because 3.4 million by your figures don't want it, the other 56.6 million should just have to accept their decision, funny I thought we lived in a democracy.

It isn't 56.whatever million. There are 30 Million motorists in the UK. The other 26 million are too young to vote, or couldn't care less what happens. Of the 30 million motorists, 1.5 million are against the tax. The remainder don't necessarily agree with the tax, but probably at least 13.5 Million motorists are against it.

Oh so you're recommending discrimination as a solution? Not surprising from someone who no doubt follows the Christian view that homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as Christians I guess.

Now you're accusing me of being anti-gay! Nowhere will you find that I've expressed a view on homesexuality. You are therefore guilty of discrimination on the grounds of religious belief... which according to the rules of the forum would mean that you should ban yourself! So you'd better retract that statement!

Most supermarkets are out of town so why couldn't they do their shop by car? A lot of supermarkets aren't in congested areas so shopping at them wouldn't cause any additional cost.

Again you talk utter crap! All the supermarkets in my area are right in the middle of the towns! Don't know where you've been living for that last 20+ years!

MPs aren't really paid that much, particularly for the hours they often work, your comments are simple paranoia and nothing else.

In the newspapers a few months ago, MPs were in fact demanding that they be awarded a 60% pay rise! That's fact, check it up and you'll see it's the truth! Some of the top politicians in the papers are earning over £100K a year!

[Ovi]

In the newspapers a few months ago, MPs were in fact demanding that they be awarded a 60% pay rise! That's fact, check it up and you'll see it's the truth! Some of the top politicians in the papers are earning over £100K a year!

Compare the wages of MPs running the country to Directors of top companies, and then tell me they are overpaid!

Even small private company directors can easily earn over 100k a year.

One of the reasons we get Monkeys running the country is because they get paid (comparative) Peanuts.

Back to the original point of discussion, you are still missing one of the biggest benefits that the Tax is trying to introduce.... reducing travel times by Car!

A car getting stuck in traffic generates a lot more pollution than a car that can complete a journey without getting stuck anywhere. If Peak times are taxed more then not only is there an incentive to not use cars, but if you do choose to travel by car then there is an incentive to adjust travel times to outside of peak times.

I would prefer a carrot to the stick, but unfortunately sticks do tend to work better.

[Lieva]

im wondering

is it better for the enviroment.
i mean lest face it..we all now have cars which run on green fuel.

i wonder if the busses are so green?
or trains..
and i suspect hollowing out the planet to make tubes isnt good.
I suspect trams are hazardous also but as its not looked into - thats promoted as a greener way..but i wonder why they were all taken out of most the citys if they are better...

have ya ever looked at a metal lamp post?
Its quite interesting.
you have the metal lamp post
then round the bottom there is grass..
well..actually...not..
see no grass seems to grow around a metal pole which conducts electricity..
and everyone agrees electricity is clean fuel..
wonder why that is

[Gandelf]

Compare the wages of MPs running the country to Directors of top companies, and then tell me they are overpaid!

I agree Ovi, but most MPs are on at least £30K a year. That's almost twice the amount I'm earning. I bet they're easily well above the national average for yearly earnings. The question is whether they actually earn their pay. Maybe they do, maybe they don't... it's not for me to say. If I asked my employer for a 60% pay rise I'd get laughed off the premises. My pay award last year was 2.7%! MPs on £30K+ a year can easily afford congestion charges. What about the "poor" folk on £10k or less?

Even small private company directors can easily earn over 100k a year.

Again I agree, but directors can give themselves whatever they want. They will be the ones who can afford congestion charges and will be smirking when they drive past folks queuing at bus stops, when the weather is cold and wet. That's hardly fair! If the Government wants to take traffic off the roads, then they should introduce measures that will affect everyone, not just those who can't afford to pay the tariffs.

One of the reasons we get Monkeys running the country is because they get paid (comparative) Peanuts.

Well, if politicians are monkeys earning twice my pay, what does that make me?

Back to the original point of discussion, you are still missing one of the biggest benefits that the Tax is trying to introduce.... reducing travel times by Car!

But it isn't reducing travel times by any large degree. It takes me just under 30 minutes to drive to work. That's perfectly acceptable. To go by bus would at least double the time in my case, so why am I going to be penalised for wanting to get to work more quickly? Something just doesn't add up. The more I think about it, the more I feel it's just a money-making racket for the Government and it's just plain wrong. Full stop! Why do forum posters keep ignoring what I've said about my own experience of buses taking longer than cars where I live?

A car getting stuck in traffic generates a lot more pollution than a car that can complete a journey without getting stuck anywhere.

I can only speak for myself. I don't really get stuck, except at traffic lights and that's only for a couple of minutes. The congestion is not a problem, in my case. It doesn't bother me. The Government are basing their arguments on the experience of large inner city congestion, for example, in London. Smaller cities do not suffer in the same way. Why should I have laws dictated to me, that are based on problems only found in really large cities? If they want congestion charges, why can't they impose them only in the really big cities and not force it on everyone? And again, cars are causing less pollution. Catalytic converters remove the worst components of exhaust fumes and it's getting better all the time! What if cars caused no pollution? It's feasible! Would they still insist on taking them off the road?

If Peak times are taxed more then not only is there an incentive to not use cars, but if you do choose to travel by car then there is an incentive to adjust travel times to outside of peak times.

Try telling that to my boss! I'm sure she'll be very pleased when I say that I will not be coming into work until 11am, when the congestion charges don't apply!

I would prefer a carrot to the stick, but unfortunately sticks do tend to work better.

Carrots are only for asses. I'm sure as hell not one of those (though some my disagree). It is my civil right to travel where I want, by any means I want, at any time I want, without being penalised. I don't want my every movement monitored by satellite. Before long they'll tax us for going to the toilet. This Government is bunch of morons who want to turn us into Social Capitalists. I'm afraid it doesn't wash with me. The sooner Labour is out, the better.

[OohhoO]

Zurich is renowned for having one of the best public transport systems in the world. I live just outside Zurich & work in Zurich. If I could drive to work in the morning I would have a 10-15 minute journey. By train & then tram I have 45-60 minutes (assuming they actually come, are on time, & I don't miss them).

Here they force you to use public transport by making parking spaces extremely rare & extremely expensive, both for companies & individuals. A slot in the garage at the bank where I work would cost me around £150 a month, & I'd be on the waiting list for 5-7 years before getting one. A slot in a public park-house would cost me £15-20 a day & I'd still need to get the tram afterwards.
I take the train

[Lairiodd]

If they're effectively creating a new form of taxation, surely they must balance this by decreasing various other forms of taxation? Otherwise they're effectively decreasing the amount of available cash in peoples pockets, which would be bad for consumption & therefore the economy.

No, the objective of taxation is to maximise the revenue for the government (and equivalently to maximise the power of the civil service). It is highly unlikely that they will reduce other forms of taxation.

You will notice that NO government ever announces the total amount of tax collected per citizen per year. This always goes up.

If they do reduce other forms, they will be reduced by less than the extra revenue from the congestion tax.

The congestion tax in London was probably instituted to give the Mayor a revenue source that is independent of the national government.

This would worry me too tbh. In fact I think this kind of thing would be illegal in Switzerland due to our laws on privacy & data & personal rights. Why not just plant a chip in peoples skulls so you can know where they are & what they're thinking & stimulate corrective behaviour before they even do anything wrong? Big Brother's watching you!

Right. However, as I said, it is possible to do it in such a way as to not track individual road users. They could make it the law that only cars which don't have a transmitter can have their registrations photographed. If this is coupled with allowing anyone (any company) to make the transmitters, then it can protect privacy. Ideally, each transmitter should not have an ID number built into it and they shouldn't be able to link 2 payments to each other.

[Lairiodd]

minority report!!!

seriously tho.
if the chips prevent car burglary would be good. *But* i dont think it will...

"Chips in people's heads" would be a really bad thing. The government would get alot less trustworthy if it could silence groups it didn't like "for the common good".

Also, at the moment, if the government want people to use public transport, they have to make it convenient/clean/safe etc. If there is a congestion charge, it is in their interests to not improve public transport, because a) some people now cannot affort to use their car and will still use it if it is worse than now and b) the lower the standard of public transport, the more revenue they make from the congestion tax.

[Lairiodd]

I agree Ovi, but most MPs are on at least £30K a year. That's almost twice the amount I'm earning. I bet they're easily well above the national average for yearly earnings. The question is whether they actually earn their pay. Maybe they do, maybe they don't... it's not for me to say. If I asked my employer for a 60% pay rise I'd get laughed off the premises. My pay award last year was 2.7%! MPs on £30K+ a year can easily afford congestion charges. What about the "poor" folk on £10k or less?

MPs can make money either by salary or by taking bribes (or other indirect forms of bribery). If you make the base salary high enough, then they are less likely to risk it by taking bribes.

Fundamentally, legislators have corruptable power. Look at the total government budget that they control. It is around 500 billion pounds (from a quick Google search). This means that the government budget is around 1 billion pounds per MP (approx). They could quadruple the MPs' salary and it wouldn't make a dent in the tax payable by the general public.

What would be interesting would be looking at how much MPs actually make on average due to 'perks' etc. and compare it to their actual salary.

[Ovi]

Gandelf,

Try looking at the situation from a broader perspective than just you, all of your points so far seem to suggest that because the tax is bad for you it is a bad tax. It'll almost certainly be worse for me, since my route suffers severely from conjestion, but I realise that for the good of the planet something needs to be done.

It is not your civil right to travel where you want when you want without being penalised... IF it destroys the planet in the process, that is purely a selfish point of view!

[Xest]

Gandelf,

Try looking at the situation from a broader perspective than just you, all of your points so far seem to suggest that because the tax is bad for you it is a bad tax. It'll almost certainly be worse for me, since my route suffers severely from conjestion, but I realise that for the good of the planet something needs to be done.

It is not your civil right to travel where you want when you want without being penalised... IF it destroys the planet in the process, that is purely a selfish point of view!

I think even what you said doesn't describe what Gandelf is saying. Certain people here are still missing the point entirely, if Gandelf can get into work in 15 - 30minutes or whatever by car then he's not travelling into a congested area and hence wont suffer congestion tax, so the quality of his public transport is irrelevant!

In the cities that will suffer congestion charges however there have been attempts to fight the problem for years upon years, in every single one of these cities one of the methods is to improve public transport by providing bus only lanes, therefore, congested cities have the infrastructure in place to ensure that public transport CAN get you there faster than private transport hence why I can't see why people are making these "Well I tried a bus once and it took 3hrs instead of my 15minute drive by car" arguments - saying that is all very well but again it also means one of two things, that you live so close to your work in a congested area that the charges will be minimal (but to live so close means you could actually walk it easy!) or that you live further away but aren't slowed down by congestion and hence wont be charged congestion charges anyway!

Furthermore, I find it amusing that Gandelf suggested I don't understand the problem because I live in a big city - I live in the Yorkshire dales for crying out loud, it doesn't get much more remote than that in the UK yet I can still get to Leeds in 45minutes total (30minutes bus, followed by 15minutes train) vs. 1 - 2hrs by car during busy traffic periods. What's more, the buses I have to catch come from Barnsley, one of the more deprived cities in the country so it's not like I don't know about travelling with the poor folks (usually chav scum) as it were either.

The only argument I do agree with here is the potential for abuse by what is frankly already too much of a police/nanny state, however you have to realise that because there is so much opposition against it is exactly the reason why abuse will likely be impossible. If the goverment were to start using it for other purposes you'd likely see a national boycott of the scheme whereby millions of drivers would probably remove the tracking system from their car. There's also plenty of ways it can be implemented such that the data can only be used for the purposes it's intended for regardless however, so as long as proper oversight is given during implementation this shouldn't be an issue. Basically I'm saying don't vote against it yet - wait until there's actually something wrong with it, because right now the proposed system is actually pretty good and most of the whine is from those who simply don't understand the system and don't understand that the system either wont effect them, or will force them to stop being lazy and find a quicker and cheaper route to work!