If you drive a car, van, etc., please read -

Sarah Kennedy was talking about this proposed car tax scheme on Radio
2. Apparently there is only one month left to register your objection
to the 'Pay As You Go' road tax.

The petition is on the 10 Downing St website but they didn't tell
anybody about it. Therefore at the time of Sarah's comments only
250,000 people had signed it and 750,000 signatures are required for
the government to at least take any notice.

Once you've given your details (you don't have to give your full
address, just house number and postcode will do), they will send you
an email with a link in it. Once you click on that link, you'll have
signed the petition.

The government's proposal to introduce road pricing will mean you
having to purchase a tracking device for your car and paying a monthly
bill to use it. The tracking device will cost about £200 and in a
recent study by the BBC, the lowest monthly bill was £28 for a rural
florist and £194 for a delivery driver. A non working mother who used
the car to take the kids to school paid £86 in one month.

On top of this massive increase in tax, you will be tracked. Somebody
will know where you are at all times. They will also know how fast you
have been going, so even if you accidentally creep over a speed limit
in time you can probably expect a Notice of Intended Prosecution with
your monthly bill.

If you are concerned about this Orwellian plan and want to stop the
constant bashing of the car driver, please sign the petition on No
10's new website (link below) and pass this on to as many people as
possible. Sign up if you value your freedom and democratic rights -



http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
robgraham wrote:

If you drive a car, van, etc., please read -

Sarah Kennedy was talking about this proposed car tax scheme on Radio
2. Apparently there is only one month left to register your objection
to the 'Pay As You Go' road tax.

The petition is on the 10 Downing St website but they didn't tell
anybody about it. Therefore at the time of Sarah's comments only
250,000 people had signed it and 750,000 signatures are required for
the government to at least take any notice.

SNIP

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax

Just to update that, the petition now has about 665,000 signatures and has
another 2 weeks to run - closing on 20th Feb.

It is by far the best supported petition on the No 10 website - the next in
line having a mere 22,000 signatures - but it still needs more people to
sign it in the next few days if it is to have any effect.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:15:43 -0000 Roger Mills wrote :
It is by far the best supported petition on the No 10 website -
the next in line having a mere 22,000 signatures - but it still
needs more people to sign it in the next few days if it is to
have any effect.

If five million people signed it would still have no effect. The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.
Traffic congestion is Socialist: the duke and the dustman sit
there side by side both getting fed up. Freeing the roads up for
those with money must appeal to those who have lots.

"Equally, measures to reduce car usage have other arguments to
back them up - not least the fact that the marginal car user does
not take into account the pollution and congestion that this
produces. I have long favoured a policy or road-pricing which made
us consider the worth of a journey against its now explicit cost.

I would press on with road pricing and justify it also as a
measure against global warming."

Roger Bootle is managing director of Capital Economics and economic
adviser to Deloitte.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai.../29/ccom29.xml

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:40:31 UTC, Tony Bryer
wrote:

If five million people signed it would still have no effect. The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.

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.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:40:31 UTC, Tony Bryer
wrote:

If five million people signed it would still have no effect. The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.

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.

Just how is it state control?

And it doesn't have to be implemented as a surveillance
tool. IMHO you would have better results just campaigning
for that.

tim

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:47:43 -0000, tim..... wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:40:31 UTC, Tony Bryer
wrote:

If five million people signed it would still have no effect. The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.

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.

Just how is it state control?

And it doesn't have to be implemented as a surveillance
tool. IMHO you would have better results just campaigning
for that.

Mobile phones aren't implememted as a surveillance tool, but phone records
have been used for forensic purposes.

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. 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.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

"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)

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:03:23 UTC, Tony Bryer
wrote:

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

True

rather persuading people to change their lifestyles.

Probably not. Merely an excuse to install trackers.

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.

That's assuming there is a choice. Nearest suitable school for my kids
is at least 8 miles away. Terrible public transport (1.5hrs by bus).
We've sent him FURTHER away so he can go by train. GIvernments never
seem to grasp that a big stick won't work if there is no alternative.

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

That's not so joined-up, though. And there aren't cameras everywhere
yet.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:03:23 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

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

But there's also a tax on moving house (Stamp Duty).

or sends them to a school in walking distance.

That would seem to imply parents have a choice. Here in Leeds they
don't, the council just runs a computer program that allocates every
child a place in a school somewhere. They then declare all their
schools to be *Full*.

A parent has the right to chose the school his child attends under the
1949 (?) Education Act, However, a parent cannot request that their
child is given a place at a school that is already "Full". Geddit ?

The Council's Admissions officer has admitted to me their computer
program does not take account of the presence or absence of footpaths,
bus routes etc or obstacles such as railway lines, motorways, dual
carriageways etc, only distance on the map from the centroid of the
school to the centroid of the child's house as the crow flies. When I
complained that there was a school bus that went to the local school
(But not the one she was allocated to) from our nearest bus stop, they
just replied that since deregulation the council didn't run the buses
any more. :-(((

Under the act the school has to show in detail how the effective
operation of the school would be compromised by the admission of that
one extra pupil. Their submission was that they might not have enough
coat hooks in the cloakroom, or might be short of chairs.

We appealed this with the Local Government Ombudsman and our appeal
was refused.

So ...

**** Em.

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.

Correct.

Why give them another opportunity to track our lawful movements, on a
plate, the data to be made available to all and sundry including US
Government Agencies ?

What were *you* doing in Grosvenor Square in Sept 2,004?

You weren't ? According to your car's Traffic Data Details ...

Next stop Gitmo.

DG

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:40:31 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

If five million people signed it would still have no effect. The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic

caused by Labours (and Ken's) bus lanes, traffic light phasing, width
restirction, and getting rid of turn-on's to roads by adding lights to
stop the side- traffic moving onto a road when nothing is coming in
the nearside lane on the road they wish to join. Why is this doen -
simple - it justifies people paying through the teeth for tax upon
tax, when proper traffic management would allow most of the traffic to
flow much better - sort of like it was many years ago before someone
twigged they can raise money by lying about the real cause.

In article ,
tester wrote:
If five million people signed it would still have no effect. The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic

caused by Labours (and Ken's) bus lanes, traffic light phasing, width
restirction, and getting rid of turn-on's to roads by adding lights to
stop the side- traffic moving onto a road when nothing is coming in
the nearside lane on the road they wish to join. Why is this doen -
simple - it justifies people paying through the teeth for tax upon
tax, when proper traffic management would allow most of the traffic to
flow much better - sort of like it was many years ago before someone
twigged they can raise money by lying about the real cause.

So there was no traffic congestion in London before these measures, and
they have made it worse - or has traffic increased?

--
*I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tester wrote:
If five million people signed it would still have no effect. The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic

caused by Labours (and Ken's) bus lanes, traffic light phasing, width
restirction, and getting rid of turn-on's to roads by adding lights to
stop the side- traffic moving onto a road when nothing is coming in
the nearside lane on the road they wish to join. Why is this doen -
simple - it justifies people paying through the teeth for tax upon
tax, when proper traffic management would allow most of the traffic to
flow much better - sort of like it was many years ago before someone
twigged they can raise money by lying about the real cause.

So there was no traffic congestion in London before these measures, and
they have made it worse - or has traffic increased?

Congestion in London has been a fact of life since I were a lad in the 60's

Its worse now because the roads are all 'engineered' - prior to that one
could always find some sort of a route around it..only visitors got
seriously stuck.

Since I left it in the 70's all my rat runs are closed off..and the net
result is that the rush hours have now expanded to take in the whole day
and half of the night, whereas a decade or so ago, one could if one went
post 9 a.m. and before 4 pm get to where one wanted at maybe 17mph
average..now its more like 5mph.

Tony Bryer wrote:

The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.


I have never quite followed the logic of this "ever increasing"
argument. Just who is supposed to drive all these extra cars? Most
people eligible for a drivers licence already has one. The number
turning 17 each year probably does not even match the death rate. So
appart from social trends forcing more people to resort to car use,
there does not seem to be that much scope for expansion.

Perhaps rather than trying to social engineer a different response to
car use which goes against necessity and human nature, they ought to
consider encouraging an environment where the need for car use is less.
Home shopping is starting that trend. We just need home working to catch
up.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2007-02-06 01:01:55 +0000, John Rumm said:

Tony Bryer wrote:

The reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.


I have never quite followed the logic of this "ever increasing"
argument. Just who is supposed to drive all these extra cars? Most
people eligible for a drivers licence already has one. The number
turning 17 each year probably does not even match the death rate. So
appart from social trends forcing more people to resort to car use,
there does not seem to be that much scope for expansion.

I looked at figures for my area (which has one of the highest levels of
car ownership in the country), and the figures seem to support this
point. For number of households:

No car: 2001 9.2% 1991 11.4%
1 car: 2001 37.6% 1991 40.1%
2 cars: 2001 41.1% 1991 39.5%
3 cars: 2001 9.1% 1991 9.1%

So if anything there is a minor fall in ownership but nothing significant.

Public transport has continued to dwindle but in any case doesn't match
the profile and requirements of
the area.

Traffic congestion in the area, where it happens, has much more to do
with incompetent traffic schemes than volume of cars



Perhaps rather than trying to social engineer a different response to
car use which goes against necessity and human nature, they ought to
consider encouraging an environment where the need for car use is less.
Home shopping is starting that trend. We just need home working to
catch up.

I looked at those figures as well.

70% of the local economically active population is involved in
managerial, professional and related occupations vs. 53% in England and
Wales. These are potential candidates for home working - i.e. don't
necessarily need to travel to a place of work every day or at all.

Nonetheless, 68% of people travel to work driving a car (65% in 2001).
Bus travel has fallen from 5.2% to 4.4%
Train travel has increased from 4.7 to 5.3%
Othe modes of transport have changed by a fractional percentage.

Home working has increased from 4.9% to 10.7% (more than double, but
still not a lot as a percentage)

Nationally, 55% travel to work by driving a car and 9% work at home.

OTOH, we have Ken Livingstone publishing figures for transport in
central London (by definition suspect) extolling the virtues of public
transport (36% of journies); 40% of households not owning a car (guess
what Ken, this means that 60% do); and only 10% of people using cars to
get to work (surprise, surprise).
The point is the same. Why do people perceive a need to go to central
London to work and do their shopping?

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-02-06 01:01:55 +0000, John Rumm
said:

Tony Bryer wrote:

The reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.


I have never quite followed the logic of this "ever increasing"
argument. Just who is supposed to drive all these extra cars? Most
people eligible for a drivers licence already has one. The number
turning 17 each year probably does not even match the death rate. So
appart from social trends forcing more people to resort to car use,
there does not seem to be that much scope for expansion.

I looked at figures for my area (which has one of the highest levels of
car ownership in the country), and the figures seem to support this
point. For number of households:

No car: 2001 9.2% 1991 11.4%
1 car: 2001 37.6% 1991 40.1%
2 cars: 2001 41.1% 1991 39.5%
3 cars: 2001 9.1% 1991 9.1%

So if anything there is a minor fall in ownership but nothing significant.

Public transport has continued to dwindle but in any case doesn't match
the profile and requirements of
the area.

Traffic congestion in the area, where it happens, has much more to do
with incompetent traffic schemes than volume of cars



Perhaps rather than trying to social engineer a different response to
car use which goes against necessity and human nature, they ought to
consider encouraging an environment where the need for car use is
less. Home shopping is starting that trend. We just need home working
to catch up.

I looked at those figures as well.

70% of the local economically active population is involved in
managerial, professional and related occupations vs. 53% in England and
Wales. These are potential candidates for home working - i.e. don't
necessarily need to travel to a place of work every day or at all.

Nonetheless, 68% of people travel to work driving a car (65% in 2001).
Bus travel has fallen from 5.2% to 4.4%
Train travel has increased from 4.7 to 5.3%
Othe modes of transport have changed by a fractional percentage.

Home working has increased from 4.9% to 10.7% (more than double, but
still not a lot as a percentage)

Nationally, 55% travel to work by driving a car and 9% work at home.

OTOH, we have Ken Livingstone publishing figures for transport in
central London (by definition suspect) extolling the virtues of public
transport (36% of journies); 40% of households not owning a car (guess
what Ken, this means that 60% do); and only 10% of people using cars to
get to work (surprise, surprise).
The point is the same. Why do people perceive a need to go to central
London to work and do their shopping?



Simple. Because in the case of Cambridge, you can earn 100K plus jumping
on a train and going to the city, whereas 50k is the tops locally.

The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

Tony Bryer wrote:

The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.


I have never quite followed the logic of this "ever increasing"
argument. Just who is supposed to drive all these extra cars? Most
people eligible for a drivers licence already has one. The number
turning 17 each year probably does not even match the death rate. So
appart from social trends forcing more people to resort to car use,
there does not seem to be that much scope for expansion.

More roads generate more traffic don't y'know. Well not really. That is
a myth put about by the anti car lobby. The reality is that we have a
currently unsatisfied demand for road space due to decades of under
investment in the roads network.The irony is that the cost to the
country in terms of wasted time and extra polution caused by slow moving
and stationary traffic is probably greater than the cost of providing
adequate roads would have been.

--
Roger Chapman

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:58:23 GMT someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

More roads generate more traffic don't y'know. Well not really. That is
a myth put about by the anti car lobby.

Are SACTRA part of "the anti car lobby"?

Is the President of Transport 2000, who has been filmed for
Transport 2000 driving his car, part of "the anti car lobby"?
http://www.transport2000.org.uk/celebrity/News.asp


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article ,
Roger wrote:
More roads generate more traffic don't y'know. Well not really. That is
a myth put about by the anti car lobby. The reality is that we have a
currently unsatisfied demand for road space due to decades of under
investment in the roads network.The irony is that the cost to the
country in terms of wasted time and extra polution caused by slow moving
and stationary traffic is probably greater than the cost of providing
adequate roads would have been.

That's fine if you're happy to have your house knocked down to provide new
roads. Most aren't however. Although they would be happy to have *your*
house knocked down - just not theirs. This first really became apparent
with the London motorway box scheme some 40 years ago.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

John Rumm wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:

The reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.


I have never quite followed the logic of this "ever increasing"
argument. Just who is supposed to drive all these extra cars? Most
people eligible for a drivers licence already has one. The number
turning 17 each year probably does not even match the death rate. So
appart from social trends forcing more people to resort to car use,
there does not seem to be that much scope for expansion.

Perhaps rather than trying to social engineer a different response to
car use which goes against necessity and human nature, they ought to
consider encouraging an environment where the need for car use is less.
Home shopping is starting that trend. We just need home working to catch
up.




The short answer is to remove all obstacles to traffic FLOW - all those
humps bumps traffic lights and chicanes..and to tax fuel till the pips
squeak.

People will think twice about a trip to the supermarket to get some
coffee if it costs 30 quid in fuel.

The surplus tax take can go on better roads, or better railways. Or VAT
rebates for those who HAVE to use cars..etc..like fireman and ambulances
and the like.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The short answer is to remove all obstacles to traffic FLOW - all those
humps bumps traffic lights and chicanes..and to tax fuel till the pips
squeak.

Traffic calming measures are there for road safety. They make very little
difference to actual flow.

People will think twice about a trip to the supermarket to get some
coffee if it costs 30 quid in fuel.

Or they'll get an electric car.

The surplus tax take can go on better roads, or better railways. Or VAT
rebates for those who HAVE to use cars..etc..like fireman and ambulances
and the like.

Why do those have to live so far from work they need to come in by car?

--
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
I have never quite followed the logic of this "ever increasing"
argument. Just who is supposed to drive all these extra cars? Most
people eligible for a drivers licence already has one. The number
turning 17 each year probably does not even match the death rate. So
appart from social trends forcing more people to resort to car use,
there does not seem to be that much scope for expansion.

It's a bit like flying off for a break. People now do this several times a
year where once they didn't and later only once a year. All led by the
fact they can afford to do so. No one *needs* to fly abroad several times
a year for a break. Same with car use. The car is at the door - lets use
it. 'Let's try that Sainsburys at Lakeside rather than the one down the
road'. Believe me it happens.

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:01:55 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
I have never quite followed the logic of this "ever increasing"
argument. Just who is supposed to drive all these extra cars? Most
people eligible for a drivers licence already has one. The number
turning 17 each year probably does not even match the death rate.
So appart from social trends forcing more people to resort to car
use, there does not seem to be that much scope for expansion.

It's not the increasing number of cars, rather the way in which they
are used. The Telegraph recently carried an article which inter alia
tried to elicit readers sympathy for a couple living in Farnborough,
Hants who might face a five-figure bill if road pricing came in.
Each day he drives to Chiswick, West London, she drives to an office
park near Heathrow. Multiply this a thousand times over and you see
why the roads in this part of the world are full of standing traffic
for hours each day. Pre M3/M25 they would not have made this
lifestyle choice.

Several times a year I drive up the M40 to NEC, invariably endless
miles of slow-moving or static traffic coming towards London. Again
pre-M40 those drivers would almost certainly have chosen homes and
jobs in closer proximity.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:01:55 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
I have never quite followed the logic of this "ever increasing"
argument. Just who is supposed to drive all these extra cars? Most
people eligible for a drivers licence already has one. The number
turning 17 each year probably does not even match the death rate.
So appart from social trends forcing more people to resort to car
use, there does not seem to be that much scope for expansion.

It's not the increasing number of cars, rather the way in which they
are used. The Telegraph recently carried an article which inter alia
tried to elicit readers sympathy for a couple living in Farnborough,
Hants who might face a five-figure bill if road pricing came in.
Each day he drives to Chiswick, West London, she drives to an office
park near Heathrow. Multiply this a thousand times over and you see
why the roads in this part of the world are full of standing traffic
for hours each day. Pre M3/M25 they would not have made this
lifestyle choice.

Several times a year I drive up the M40 to NEC, invariably endless
miles of slow-moving or static traffic coming towards London. Again
pre-M40 those drivers would almost certainly have chosen homes and
jobs in closer proximity.

But now, of course, there are no jobs where we live and where the jobs are,
the homes are well out of price range so travel is unavoidable, not a
choice.

John.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:01:55 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
I have never quite followed the logic of this "ever increasing"
argument. Just who is supposed to drive all these extra cars? Most
people eligible for a drivers licence already has one. The number
turning 17 each year probably does not even match the death rate.
So appart from social trends forcing more people to resort to car
use, there does not seem to be that much scope for expansion.

It's not the increasing number of cars, rather the way in which they
are used. The Telegraph recently carried an article which inter alia
tried to elicit readers sympathy for a couple living in Farnborough,
Hants who might face a five-figure bill if road pricing came in.
Each day he drives to Chiswick, West London, she drives to an office
park near Heathrow. Multiply this a thousand times over and you see
why the roads in this part of the world are full of standing traffic
for hours each day. Pre M3/M25 they would not have made this
lifestyle choice.

Several times a year I drive up the M40 to NEC, invariably endless
miles of slow-moving or static traffic coming towards London. Again
pre-M40 those drivers would almost certainly have chosen homes and
jobs in closer proximity.

Exactly.

Its amazing how the population of this country appear to bne making
choices based on cost benefit analysis, whereas the government appears
to never have heard the term.

Tony Bryer wrote:

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:15:43 -0000 Roger Mills wrote :

It is by far the best supported petition on the No 10 website -
the next in line having a mere 22,000 signatures - but it still
needs more people to sign it in the next few days if it is to
have any effect.

If five million people signed it would still have no effect. The
reality is that something has to be done to....

.....raise yet more revenue so that the Government can continue in the
manner to which it has grown accustomed.

The fact that Two Jags had asserted he would have a joined-up public
transport policy in place years ago, and has failed to do so, has of
course no bearing on this latest policy initiative.

The fact that it's cheaper to fly intercity rather than go by train is
a by-product of that policy failure.

London has the highest-priced public transport system in the world.

One cannot blame people for choosing the easiest and cheapest way to
travel. Merely to raise that cost to match that that resulted from
failed policies, and blame it on traffic density or global warming is,
well, mendacious.

"I would press on with road pricing and justify it also as a
measure against global warming."

Roger Bootle is managing director of Capital Economics and economic
adviser to Deloitte.

Oh no, not that too. Anthropogenic GW is not proved; it merely has a
concensus among a minority of scientists working in the field, most of
which do not have a clue about the major effects. See slide number 20:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...greenhouse.pdf



--

Frank

robgraham wrote:
If you drive a car, van, etc., please read -

Yawn.

This "petition" causes as much spam as "bigger harder erections"

quote
"A pilot scheme could be carried out using volunteer drivers in a large
British conurbation within five to six years, but a national scheme
would be rolled out within 10-15 years."
/quote

Yeah right.

So which political party is going to be in power then?
Somehow I doubt they will be taking any notice of antiquated theoetical
policies of todays governments. Besides which, any satellite tracking
system of today would be GPS based. How can anyone prove your vehicle
was moving if the "black box" was disabled or cloned and left plugged in
in your garage?

Complete A.D. 2001 comic book rubbish, not worthy of bandwidth.
You can stick your petition in your lunch box as far as I'm concerned!

Pete
--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://gymratz.co.uk/polar-heart-rate-monitors/ Polar HeartRate Monitors
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://water-rower.co.uk - Worlds best prices on the Worlds best Rower.

"robgraham" wrote in message
roups.com...
If you drive a car, van, etc., please read -

Sarah Kennedy was talking about this proposed car tax scheme on Radio
2. Apparently there is only one month left to register your objection
to the 'Pay As You Go' road tax.

The government's proposal to introduce road pricing will mean you
having to purchase a tracking device for your car and paying a monthly
bill to use it. The tracking device will cost about £200 and in a

Anybody who believes this probably thinks that alice in wonderland
is someone's biography.

It will be at least 5 years before the infrastructure for this is ready.

By that time the boxes will cost 20 quid each.

tim

tim..... wrote:

It will be at least 5 years before the infrastructure for this is ready.

By that time the boxes will cost 20 quid each.

The national infrastructure of roadside telemetry and IT systems to talk
to them however will cost £20Bn by the time they can make some pretence
at working, and we will have paid for it all through the back door...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Plus a tax to cover the Olympic Games overspend.

"pebe" wrote in message
news

tim..... Wrote:


...........It will be at least 5 years before the infrastructure for
this is ready.

By that time the boxes will cost 20 quid each.

tim
Plus a tax to cover the Olympic Games overspend.

Ggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...............




--
pebe

tim..... wrote:

Anybody who believes this probably thinks that alice in wonderland
is someone's biography.

It will be at least 5 years before the infrastructure for this is ready.

By that time the boxes will cost 20 quid each.


I'm sure they will. But what will *we* have to pay for them?

"robgraham" wrote in message
oups.com...
....
The petition is on the 10 Downing St website but they didn't tell
anybody about it. ..

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of petitions on the web site and it up
to the petitioners to publicise them, not HM Government. However, as the
chances of a petition having an effect on government policy are probably
lower than that of winning a triple rollover jackpot on the lottery,
petitions really only exist to allow the people who sign them to think they
have done something.

Colin Bignell

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of petitions on the web site and it up
to the petitioners to publicise them, not HM Government. However, as the
chances of apetitionhaving an effect on government policy are probably
lower than that of winning a triple rollover jackpot on the lottery,
petitions really only exist to allow the people who sign them to think they
have done something.


While I have signed the petition, I somewhat perversely agree that it
is unlikely to change anything - whether it has 750000 signatures, or
75000000!

Im sure that realistically we are all agreed that a means of taxing
road usage is fair, on the condition that the revenue generated is
used to improve both public and private transport systems, and fund
research etc into ways of protecting the environment. What I suspect
people object to really is the governments thinking behind the scheme:
Firstly even if this scheme replaced the current road tax system,
undoubtedly they plan to drastically increase the revenue generated
from the cash cow that is the average motorist, without giving
anything back to them. Secondly, they seem to have overlooked the fact
that Big Brother is just a TV show that people watch for
entertainment, and isnt the sort of society we would like to live in.

I suspect that, should any government try to introduce something like
this, they'll soon find that the fuel tax protests of a few years ago
will seem like a walk in the park compared with the utter outrage that
will be demonstrated by this policy.

Im sure that realistically we are all agreed that a means of taxing
road usage is fair, on the condition that the revenue generated is
used to improve both public and private transport systems,

ie line the pockets of the bus companies shareholders