RE: Government firms up road charging plans

[rsvmilly]

veg said:

I love this. I will definately buying one of the "disable your government tracking device and save 000's" gizzmos that are bound to surface. Plus if they rely on cameras less and I can't be tracked, I can speed when and where I like! Bring it on the fools!

Expect lots of roadside checks with vans resembling the BBC's detector vans.

If they think you'll be avoiding taxes you can rest assured they'll have BiB on collecting duties.

[Kaiser Wull]

This is a typical New Labour trick. It works as follows:

1. Have an idea that the public will disapprove of.

2. DON'T put that proposal forward. Instead, offer something even more outlandish that is guaranteed to really get people in a rage.

3. Make a big fuss of having a "consultation exercise" to 'take account of public opinion'.

4. Make an even bigger fuss about withdrawing the outlandish proposal (on the alleged premise of listening to said public opinion) and then substitute your original idea.

5. People will be so glad to get rid of the outlandish proposal that they'll give the "replacement" one a relatively smooth ride.

6. Get re-elected by the same idiots as before.

[havoc]

Kaiser Wull said:

This is a typical New Labour trick. It works as follows: 1. Have an idea that the public will disapprove of. 2. DON'T put that proposal forward. Instead, offer something even more outlandish that is guaranteed to really get people in a rage. 3. Make a big fuss of having a "consultation exercise" to 'take account of public opinion'. 4. Make an even bigger fuss about withdrawing the outlandish proposal (on the alleged premise of listening to said public opinion) and then substitute your original idea. 5. People will be so glad to get rid of the outlandish proposal that they'll give the "replacement" one a relatively smooth ride. 6. Get re-elected by the same idiots as before.

Yep, said exactly that at work this morning. Smoke and mirrors, the b'stards are past-masters at it...and the sheep in this country fall for it and vote them in!!!

Here's a policy that stands a chance of improving the country: Sterilise all chavs and wasters. Force late-term abortions on these people already pregnant...you know, 15 years late if necessary!!!

Alternatively, why not bring a qualification requirement into being allowed to vote?!?


[Jeez...am clearly riled this evening...extermination, eugenics and elitism in one post!]

[bob26]

Good little trick that but i found it goes something more like:

1. Have an idea that the public will really disapprove of.

2. Put that proposal forward.

3. Recieve thousands of complaints/petitions etc

4. Send out newsletters with 'revised' proposals

5. Recieve thousands of complaints/petitions etc

6. Carry out consultations with those affected

7. Carry out original proposal regardless of what anyone wants

Least thats whats happening around where i live with bus lanes (apparently the £millions it costs will help save bout 3 seconds from a journey)

& i don't even live in london!

[joust]

Makes me laugh this, particularly as it keeps on coming up.

£5 device will "stop" any GPS device working in a (variable) 1" to 50" area.

Slip one in your pocket. Drive the car. Car "knows" it's moving, but can't work out where (drive a satnav car without the GPS signal and after about 3 turns it'll think you are going North when you are going South....)

They ring you up.
"Hello Sir, your system has a problem, we don't know where you are".
"Really - there must be a fault on it - come out and fix it"

Repeat.

Unenforcable. You bet.

(P.S. the same is true for most GPS tracker devices - if you want to nick a car and for them to not know where the car is, use the same device)

See stories

http://computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,77702,00.html

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:4ruU_GPGUdMJ:https://gps.losangeles.af.mil/gpslibrary/DOCUMENTS/PUBLIC-GPS-IN-THE-NEWS/DOCUMENTS/scientificamerican0414.doc

Want to make one yourself - Technical details here
www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=85268

and kit list here
www.phrack.org/show.php?p=60&a=13

pretty version here
www.entropia.de/wiki/GPS_Jammer

Commercial 200km jammer
www.ac11.org/gps1.htm

The Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (www.rtca.org/) was told last year by Mike Shaw, then representing the C3I Office of the Department of Defense, that "There’s really very little we can do about jamming."

Hopefully we'll get back to reality soon.

J

[Kaiser Wull]

havoc said:

Here's a policy that stands a chance of improving the country: Sterilise all chavs and wasters. Force late-term abortions on these people already pregnant...you know, 15 years late if necessary!!!

You forgot to mention the "trendies", though!

[Twincam16]

It struck me whilst out walking today that this will essentially mean the government will know exactly when and where you've bee speeding.

Think about it - you go onto, say, a £1-per-mile motorway at a certain junction, you drive at 85 mph, you get off at another junction, the difference between the sensors will detect that you went down that stretch of road faster than 70 mph and will charge you according to your standard deviation. Callous bastards.

[RickH]

Three words...

Air....Traffic....Control

How long did it take them to get that one up and running. I seem to remember they fitted everything in, it didn't work, and by the time it was working the technology was obsolete.

Well I can safely say I didn't vote for these muppets.

Rick

[gavmitchell]

Yep scary stuff. Lots of futureristic films have shown a land where we are tracked and traced every day and fines are automatically despatched and we are regulated to the hilt, we are getting close to this. Every idea Labour come up with smacks of a big brother system where they keep tabs on us 24/7.
Why do we stand for it in this country as no other does? The US would not and if it were not for the fact that you need half a mil permanentley to get in I would be there tonight and my British passport would be burned in celebration.

[Pierscoe1]

luca brazzi said:

never ever goes above a limit, because "that's the law"

I empathise...

I have met some of these "that's the law" types... and while I am not at all a violent person, it is the single most likely thing that will result in me pummeling someone's head into a pavement one day...

I am just lost for words at these people's immense stupidity.. these words just don't cut it. They need to be rounded up and given electro-shock therapy or something.. when you've gone that far off the rails of having any grasp of reality, and right and wrong, there's just no point...

The Law is WRONG. Wake the FUK up !

[Twincam16]

Pierscoe1 said:

luca brazzi said: never ever goes above a limit, because "that's the law" I empathise... I have met some of these "that's the law" types... and while I am not at all a violent person, it is the single most likely thing that will result in me pummeling someone's head into a pavement one day... I am just lost for words at these people's immense stupidity.. these words just don't cut it. They need to be rounded up and given electro-shock therapy or something.. when you've gone that far off the rails of having any grasp of reality, and right and wrong, there's just no point... The Law is WRONG. Wake the FUK up !

Precisely. At the end of the day 'the law' is an opinion. In Nazi Germany 'the law' pretty much made it an offence to be Jewish, and what made it worse were the vast numbers of people who shrugged it all off by saying 'it's the law' if it didn't affect them.

That's probably the most extreme example, but it demonstrates what politics can do when it states that something 'is the law'.

[manek]

You know, I'm not so sure that the notion of road charging is a bad thing. Think about the concept rather than the proposed type of implementation.

I don't object to the idea that I can travel when I like on roads that will be less congested provided I'm prepared to pay for the privilege. If numpties are priced off the roads at times when I want to drive, then that's fine in my book. What I don't like is having to pay more for that privilege so, provided the scheme adopted is tax-neutral, that's OK. If fuel tax were cut by 50% and road charges accounted for the rest of that, then fine.

Separate out the satellite nonsense. It makes much more sense to price main roads using existing technology such as toll booths and the like, with sensors and electronic in-car tags loaded with virtual money. That removes the invasion into privacy that satellite tracking involves. That crazy idea must surely fall at the first post -- mainly on the human rights issue but also because you can't receive GPS signals under cover or in the narrow canyons of many big cities.

I know about the fuel tax argument but what fuel tax does not do is take account of where and when you drive. I work at home so commuting by car is an alien concept and likely to remain so. That means that for folk like me, if the balance is right, I'll actually end up paying less. Which suits me fine.

I'm not alone...

[SimonD]

manek said:

I know about the fuel tax argument but what fuel tax does not do is take account of where and when you drive. I work at home so commuting by car is an alien concept and likely to remain so. That means that for folk like me, if the balance is right, I'll actually end up paying less. Which suits me fine. I'm not alone...

'I'm alright Jack' living well here then.

manek said:

If numpties are priced off the roads at times when I want to drive, then that's fine in my book.

I too have a plan to be working from home before my years are out and my current commute is only 10-15 minutes each way, so I guess I'm quite lucky in that respect, but it's the principle of how this affects everyone, not just my pocket, which riles me.

Simon.

[apache]

rsvmilly said:

If they think you'll be avoiding taxes you can rest assured they'll have BiB on collecting duties.

True, unfortunately the only thing this bunch have excelled at is revenue collection

[nubbin]

manek said:

You know, I'm not so sure that the notion of road charging is a bad thing. Think about the concept rather than the proposed type of implementation. I don't object to the idea that I can travel when I like on roads that will be less congested provided I'm prepared to pay for the privilege. If numpties are priced off the roads at times when I want to drive, then that's fine in my book. What I don't like is having to pay more for that privilege so, provided the scheme adopted is tax-neutral, that's OK. If fuel tax were cut by 50% and road charges accounted for the rest of that, then fine. I know about the fuel tax argument but what fuel tax does not do is take account of where and when you drive. I work at home so commuting by car is an alien concept and likely to remain so. That means that for folk like me, if the balance is right, I'll actually end up paying less. Which suits me fine. I'm not alone...

I think you're slightly missing a few points, Manek - the main one being that we are all paying vast amounts of tax already - more than enough to generate a Nirvana of transport systems, if it were ploughed back in to transport infrastructure (Rod Eddington of BA suggests £100billion should cover it!).

Secondly, this is a TAX, but is being touted as an anti-congestion charge - yet it will be paid on all routes at all times - even uncongested minor routes.

The system is open to a huge amount of potential abuse, which, even if it were roadside detectors, still results in a tracking system for the population. Do you really want that? Civil liberties may be a dirty phrase in government circles, but I actually feel that my individual libeerty to pursue my life without interference and surveillance from a centralised bureaucrocay is actually fundamental as part of my status as a citizen of the UK. it is not a government's place to monitor it's citizens - they are OUR servants, we are not theirs!

Also, for each person like yourself who has the luxury of working from home, there are possibly 10 people who still have jobs that require them to remove themselves to their place of work, sometimes many miles away - not everyone of consequence lives in the commuter belt of London - out here where financial services are not the main source of income, people actually still get out of bed, drive to work, some even get their hands dirty, then they drive home, and repeat that process day after day. It is often the case that they do this because they live in a house they can afford, but this migt mean living some distance from their place of work. Just because you have a privileged and comfortable existence in the service industry sector, doesn't give you the right to inflict taxation on the rest of us - very much "I'm alright, Jack".

[manek]

I'm all right Jack? It wasn't meant to sound that way! Sorry if it did.

The wider point I was trying to make is that there are many people whom the scheme will benefit, eg those in rural areas and who don't drive that much -- the elderly and poor for example, who in effect subsidise those who live in cities and who commute because they pay proportionately more per mile for travelling off peak on rural roads.

[Einion Yrth]

manek said:

I'm all right Jack? It wasn't meant to sound that way! Sorry if it did. The wider point I was trying to make is that there are many people whom the scheme will benefit, eg those in rural areas and who don't drive that much -- the elderly and poor for example, who in effect subsidise those who live in cities and who commute because they pay proportionately more per mile for travelling off peak on rural roads.

Then it remains the case that the way forwrd is the removal of VED and, in a revenue neutral way, placing the resulting tax shortfall on fuel duty, Not tracking my whereabouts 24 seven with a costly and pointlessly complicated snooping system.

[nubbin]

manek said:

I'm all right Jack? It wasn't meant to sound that way! Sorry if it did. The wider point I was trying to make is that there are many people whom the scheme will benefit, eg those in rural areas and who don't drive that much -- the elderly and poor for example, who in effect subsidise those who live in cities and who commute because they pay proportionately more per mile for travelling off peak on rural roads.

Gotcha!

Under this road pricing scheme, it appears that ALL journeys will be subject to a charge, even short journeys on minor rural routes - so that wouldn't be fair on anyone. If it is to be a congestion busting device, then charge only those who cause the congestion, and leave uncongested roads free. I don't think that it would lead to vast amounts of traffic on smaller routes - congestion happens (to my mind, anyway,) because people have to get to a certain destination, at a certain time each day, and within a particular time constraint - and a lot of people are trying to get to the same place at the same time.

there are infinitely more intelligent and user friendly schemes than the knee-jerk reaction of "Let's charge the bastards!"

Park and Ride is the obvious one. Genuinely useful public transport is another. Car sharing lanes. Personal helicopters. Water buses for cities with big waterways (park and ride by boat, really). I'm sure there are others.

What annoys me is that no thought goes into this - it's just trial by propoganda - Labour Central Office put out the feelers through the media to gauge public opinion, then make policy on that basis. how shalow and thoughtless is that?

[ian d]

aston67 said, "its a decoy". yes i agree, along with the rest of his post.

why do i agree that it is a decoy?
i. i don't think that any system as they are proposing is workable, unless an individual tracker is fitted to every vehicle in the country and every mile of public highway has a "rate/mile", thats a lot of roads, from john o' groats to lands end.

the cheap roads are going to get very busy and in truth, congestion is really only a "southern" problem. not really applicable up here, so we'll continue paying road tax.

ii. fitting a device into every vehicle? they can't even keep check of untaxed, non mot'd, uninsured vehicles, which are regularly driven on the roads. unless they change the law, so that when a vehicle becomes any of the former, it is disabled and hence cannot be driven.

i find this very unlikely.

iii. this device, i guess that it will have to transmit information as well as receive? health implications of prolonged exposure to transmitted radiation, same as the allegation that mobile phones cause tumors?

iv. as is more likely, if this goes ahead, it will only apply to HGVs, who will then get charged by the road "rate/mile" while their road tax and fuel duty may be cut... as if!

as said, i believe this to be a decoy. the government has over spent, it is ALL about raising revenue. so after a period of consultation, bla, bla, it will be deemed as unworkable and a rise in road tax and fuel duty will be upon us. brace yourselves for another raid on your wallet.

[Crazy of Cookham]

Why is always an attack on drivers. Lets have some positive policies. Spend some of the money on a monorail over M25 between heathrow and Gatwick forget car sharing get a real alternative. Large free carparks at rail stations. Truth is the current rail capacity cannot take additional people unless they go to work at lunchtime and come home at midnight.