"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb 2007 19:40:14 GMT Bob Eager wrote :
I have no problem with that....but I'd prefer it to be done via fuel
pricing, or whatever. Otherwise it's just one more state control and
surveillance tool.

But ultimately, and missed by most commentators, this is not about
making money, rather persuading people to change their lifestyles. So
the mother quoted by the OP doesn't spend £86 a month to take her
children to school, but sends them by PT, moves house or sends them to
a school in walking distance.

It's unrealistic to suggest that a mother could do any of those things!

Merely upping the price of fuel won't do
this - if you choose not to drive from here to Heathrow at 10.00p.m. no
one really benefits (marginal less pollution aside). If you (and lots
like you) can be persuaded not to drive there between 0800 and 1000
then there are real benefits for everyone else.

As to surveillance, there are so many cameras around these days I
suspect that they can track anyone they need to.

Hurrah!

Mary
(who never used a car to take any or all of her five children to school/s,
they had to get up in the morning and catch the buses as Spouse and I had -
or use our bikes)