Road Pricing Transport Committee Report
Discussion
Just released here
Those of you with hypertension might just want to make sure you are stocked up with atenolol before reading.
Some gems are..
They say "The Government has indicated that with the introduction of a national road pricing scheme, the overall cost of driving would not change,.."
yet in the conclusions say "strong arguments behind introducing road pricing on a revenue raising, rather than a revenue neutral, approach"
did we ever think anything else?
Furthermore despite being clearly told in evidence from Secretary of State for Transport and others that attempts to price the motorist out of their vehicles "will not work, practically nor politically" they have decided to ignore that advice.
Mrs Effing Dunwoody, which bit of "WILL NOT WORK" do you NOT UNDERSTAND YOU NUMPTY!"
Those of you with hypertension might just want to make sure you are stocked up with atenolol before reading.
Some gems are..
They say "The Government has indicated that with the introduction of a national road pricing scheme, the overall cost of driving would not change,.."
yet in the conclusions say "strong arguments behind introducing road pricing on a revenue raising, rather than a revenue neutral, approach"
did we ever think anything else?
Furthermore despite being clearly told in evidence from Secretary of State for Transport and others that attempts to price the motorist out of their vehicles "will not work, practically nor politically" they have decided to ignore that advice.
Mrs Effing Dunwoody, which bit of "WILL NOT WORK" do you NOT UNDERSTAND YOU NUMPTY!"Flat in Fifth said:
Just released here
Those of you with hypertension might just want to make sure you are stocked up with atenolol before reading.
Some gems are..
They say "The Government has indicated that with the introduction of a national road pricing scheme, the overall cost of driving would not change,.."
yet in the conclusions say "strong arguments behind introducing road pricing on a revenue raising, rather than a revenue neutral, approach"
did we ever think anything else?
Furthermore despite being clearly told in evidence from Secretary of State for Transport and others that attempts to price the motorist out of their vehicles "will not work, practically nor politically" they have decided to ignore that advice.
Road pricing is deeply worrying on two grounds-the first is the extra cost-and make no mistake it will be revenue raising rather than neutral.
The biggest concern however is that the technology used will probable be used to track speeds-and the prospect of being limited to 70 on a free flowing motorway is not a happy one.
That is why I believe the Tory idea of having a 80 limit with stricter enforcement is worth looking at afresh-if this technology is coming we need higher speed limits before it is implemented.
nonegreen said:
What we need is a 3000 strong sledge hammer attack on the M6 toll now. Raise the toll booths to the ground. The politicians are like naughty children they need a smack and quickly before they decide we support this theft.
The M6 Toll is not so bad for two reasons.
1. You have a choice becuase you have two alternative Motorways-one without tolls and congested the other with tolls and clear
2. There is no technology in place to measure your speed-beyond the usual speed enforcement on Motorways.
Jaglover said:
Road pricing is deeply worrying on two grounds-the first is the extra cost-and make no mistake it will be revenue raising rather than neutral.
The biggest concern however is that the technology used will probable be used to track speeds-and the prospect of being limited to 70 on a free flowing motorway is not a happy one.
That is why I believe the Tory idea of having a 80 limit with stricter enforcement is worth looking at afresh-if this technology is coming we need higher speed limits before it is implemented.
Beg pardon Jaglover, but I would have thought that from our point of view a 70 mph limit that is not particularly well enforced, is rather better than an 80 mph limit that is well enforced. An increase to 80 mph is a relatively insignificant improvement in any case, IMHO.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
The Commons Transport Select Committee is perhaps the most useless investigative body of all time.
If you read meeting minutes, you'll see they fall for all the guff that "expert opinion" offers them....Brunstrom, BRAKE, etc.
As for the Committee's leader, here's an extract from the lovely Gwyneth Dunwoody's own website about her more important work.....
Gwyneth has a wide variety of interests. She is Life President of the Labour Friends of Israel, and Vice President of Socialist International Women. When time permits she enjoys opera and theatre. She also has a collection of teddy bears and, in January 1998, attempted, unsuccessfully, to secure the return of Winnie the Pooh and his fellow stuffed toys from their display case in the New York Public Library
If you read meeting minutes, you'll see they fall for all the guff that "expert opinion" offers them....Brunstrom, BRAKE, etc.
As for the Committee's leader, here's an extract from the lovely Gwyneth Dunwoody's own website about her more important work.....
Gwyneth has a wide variety of interests. She is Life President of the Labour Friends of Israel, and Vice President of Socialist International Women. When time permits she enjoys opera and theatre. She also has a collection of teddy bears and, in January 1998, attempted, unsuccessfully, to secure the return of Winnie the Pooh and his fellow stuffed toys from their display case in the New York Public Library
TripleS said:
Road pricing is deeply worrying on two grounds-the first is the extra cost-and make no mistake it will be revenue raising rather than neutral.
The biggest concern however is that the technology used will probable be used to track speeds-and the prospect of being limited to 70 on a free flowing motorway is not a happy one.
That is why I believe the Tory idea of having a 80 limit with stricter enforcement is worth looking at afresh-if this technology is coming we need higher speed limits before it is implemented.
Beg pardon Jaglover, but I would have thought that from our point of view a 70 mph limit that is not particularly well enforced, is rather better than an 80 mph limit that is well enforced. An increase to 80 mph is a relatively insignificant improvement in any case, IMHO.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I am aware of this-in fact I would say we would be indifferent between the two policies-You would get a marginal benefit from being able to overtake marked police cars at a more acceptable speed-and a few scamera vans now will do you at around 80Mph-If the limit were 80 you would get the margin of tolerance that would be a bit above that.
But my point is we would only be indifferent if road policing stays as it is-but why should that be the case?, a bit over a decade ago speed cameras were virtually unknown, now they are everywhere.
What will happen in another decade?-perhaps spreading specs systems and this new GPS road pricing-pretty soon in my opinion you want be able to break the speed limit by any significant margin-that is why an 80 mph speed limit should be welcomed.
Jaglover said:
a few scamera vans now will do you at around 80Mph
Oh
Just finished fighting them over 79mph on the M/way!
Case was dismissed, didn't get to say my piece in Court. Didn't spoil my spotless licence though........
Surprise was that it was a PC operating the equipment from an unmarked van, not a civilian. Shame that they are wasting manpower this way.
Nonegreen, my sledgehammer is at the ready.
One of the gems I forgot to post earlier
How many flaws can you spot in that argument anyone?
Transport select committee numpties said:
Road user groups often make the argument that motorists pay more in transport-related taxes than the Government invests in transport services. Research based on data from the National Transport Model shows that although drivers pay more in taxes than is spent on road infrastructure, the costs imposed by road use are around two to three times the tax payment by drivers. This is because although road transport is convenient and often necessary, it imposes many different costs: the costs of owning and driving a vehicle, road infrastructure costs, congestion, air pollution, water pollution, climate change, land take and change to the character of the landscape, risk of death and injury, and ‘community
severance’. Some of these costs are borne by the road user, but others are borne by society at large.
How many flaws can you spot in that argument anyone?
Flat in Fifth said:
One of the gems I forgot to post earlier
Transport select committee numpties said:
Road user groups often make the argument that motorists pay more in transport-related taxes than the Government invests in transport services. Research based on data from the National Transport Model shows that although drivers pay more in taxes than is spent on road infrastructure, the costs imposed by road use are around two to three times the tax payment by drivers. This is because although road transport is convenient and often necessary, it imposes many different costs: the costs of owning and driving a vehicle, road infrastructure costs, congestion, air pollution, water pollution, climate change, land take and change to the character of the landscape, risk of death and injury, and ‘community
severance’. Some of these costs are borne by the road user, but others are borne by society at large.
How many flaws can you spot in that argument anyone?
The entire piece is bollox..... I claim my prize
Flat in Fifth said:
One of the gems I forgot to post earlier
Transport select committee numpties said:
Road user groups often make the argument that motorists pay more in transport-related taxes than the Government invests in transport services. Research based on data from the National Transport Model shows that although drivers pay more in taxes than is spent on road infrastructure, the costs imposed by road use are around two to three times the tax payment by drivers. This is because although road transport is convenient and often necessary, it imposes many different costs: the costs of owning and driving a vehicle, road infrastructure costs, congestion, air pollution, water pollution, climate change, land take and change to the character of the landscape, risk of death and injury, and ‘community
severance’. Some of these costs are borne by the road user, but others are borne by society at large.
How many flaws can you spot in that argument anyone?
Well if we are to take it seriously rather than just regard the whole statement as bo**ocks (which it is)-the cost of owning and driving a vehicle is already being borne by drivers-so how is this showing a gap between tax take and the cars negative impact on society.
Also water pollution-WTF
>> Edited by Jaglover on Sunday 27th March 20:52
It is because we drive and the pollutants go into the air the rain comes because we have rasied the global climate and washes all the pollutants into the drains which then gets to the water company who cannot wash it and then they throw it away. So the fish swim in it and we eat the fish this causes low sperm count and we father low intellect kids who grow up and become members of the 
transport committe who can twist everything since time began to the fault of the car and us for driving. IIRC Dunwoody cannot even drive herself, but can decide what is good for us. Sums it up really all the worlds problems and she spends time trying to get a flea bitten stuffed toy back.
transport committe who can twist everything since time began to the fault of the car and us for driving. IIRC Dunwoody cannot even drive herself, but can decide what is good for us. Sums it up really all the worlds problems and she spends time trying to get a flea bitten stuffed toy back.Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff