Another petition

[Moo]

I know it's nothing to do with this forum, really, but I think it deserves a hearing :

"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.

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

 

[Penners]

Signed and circulated to friends.

 

[Tom]

Signed

 

[Jon Maine]

I had this circulated too.

See the other comments, maybe a little scary, see below:

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 so far and 750,000 signatures are required to stop them introducing


This is legit... from the 10 Downing Street's website.


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.


Democracy in action?


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 care about our freedom and stopping 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.


( link in above posting )

 

[Penners]

So - they'll raise squillions of pounds from the road pricing revenue, plus a further gazillion from the tidal wave of additional speeding fines.

Has anybody read any details of how this money will be spent?

If I knew - and I mean really knew - that the money would be wholly invested in clean energy sources, then I can honestly say that I wouldn't mind paying even more to use the roads.

But do you think it will? Yeah... sure... just like the Road Fund Licence fee has always been used to fund the roads.

 

[Gervase]

Not signed.
The idea of paying for the amount of use of a vehicle seems to me to be hugely sensible. What's more, the Daily Mail and the Express probably hate the idea - so bring it on!
Looking at the thinking behind it, the intention is not to change the revenue model (petrol prices would not be slashed although duty and road tax would be reduced) but primarily to reduce congestion. To me that is a good thing.
The scheme as envisaged tracks the car - not you. Unless you are under direct observation no-one knows who's driving the car. (Your movements are monitored by the rdf tag secretly implanted on you last time you visited the dentist!).
If you use a mobile phone "Big Brother" knows where you are every minute it's switched on.
As for the efficacy of such a petition, there are more than 2000 of them on the site, ranging from the sensible to the totally barking and the national to the very, very parochial. They are hosted on the No10 site, but they are organised by an outside organisation called mySociety. As such they have no 'official' standing.
As such, this petition will probably have as much effect as the 2809 others on the No10 site.

 

[Penners]

If you use a mobile phone "Big Brother" knows where you are every minute it's switched on.

Boooo - spurious! My mobile phone is not provided by the Government. A legal warrant has to be obtained for the service provider to give the authorities details of my location.

 

[Nemesis]

Re the petitions - I suspect bread and circuses actually.

 

[Moo]

Yes, you're probably right Nemesis, but the higher-profile petitions must surely put some pressure on the government. After all, look at the success some pressure groups have had (no names, no pack drill).

And I agree with Penners - this has nothing to do with congestion, let alone carbon footprints. (Congestion is only really a problem in urban centres, yet there's no suggestion that this tax would be confined to specific areas; a journey along deserted country roads would not be exempted). The revenue will just be swallowed up, yet again, in the Treasury's economic black hole.

 

[Gervase]

If you use a mobile phone "Big Brother" knows where you are every minute it's switched on.

Boooo - spurious! My mobile phone is not provided by the Government. A legal warrant has to be obtained for the service provider to give the authorities details of my location.

Not entirely so - if anyone has access to your phone and can receive and delete a text without your knowledge, then they can track you remotely.
Take a look at http://www.traceamobile.co.uk/
Moreover, plate recognition cameras are now commonplace - a chip in your car really is no big deal when you are going to be 'clocked' every time you drive into a conurbation. And congestion is not just a city thing, it is a major problem on certain trunk roads well away from urban areas - look at the M6, M25 and M5 at certain times.
As for the paranoia implict in the petition, does anyone really imagine that we have enough civil servants in the UK to take a person and direct interest in the driving habits of each of us, and that our habits are of any interest to Big Brother? If they do, I suggest an ego resize is maybe in order. Your store loyalty card is worth more in terms of intelligence gathering. :wink:

 

[rogerh]

This is legit... from the 10 Downing Street's website.

It doesn't make it any more legitimate - anyone can start a petition there. This one has been heavily promoted around the web (as demonsrated by the fact it's turned up even here), in spam emails, by pro-motoring groups and in several tabloids. The claim that 750,000 signatures are required to halt the plans is complete nonsense. There hasn't even been a green paper on this from the government and if and when they do consider road pricing it's not going to be determined by this petition.

Nor by this one:

"The persons signing this petition fully support The Prime Minister in his endeavours to bring in a vehicle tracking and road pricing policy. It will reduce the daily death and carnage on our nations roads and reduce harmful pollution to the environment so that me may leave a better planet for our children and grandchildren."

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

 

[bower1]

I agree Gervase, I'm mostly for the idea. I've not heard a better idea for reducing congestion.

From what I've seen of the idea, you would be charged for travelling on a congested route, therefore making it more economic to find an alternative, or an alternative time or travel.

All the information would also be useful to decide when to drive, so as to avoid the busiest time. There is the danger with this that then everyone travels at the next busiest time, make that really busy. I just remember travelling to see the eclipse, when everyone was warned how busy it would be. On the morning the roads were completely empty!

I would think the solution to this would be that you can prepay to travel at a busy time, and pay less, much like trains/planes at the moment. Then it will be easier to spread the travelling load.

Other problem is obviously that smaller roads might get more traffic than they can cope with, but then they will get more expensive. They can always charge less for a busy road if YOU actually live on it.

Something has got to be done about the traffic problem, and what are the alternatives? More roads, restricting car use (by rationing?), or increasing road tax or fuel costs. I like those a lot less.

 

[Penners]

increasing road tax or fuel costs. I like those a lot less.

Why, Bower1? It seems to me that fuel tax is the logical instrument for applying road usage charges. "Why, Penners?" I hear you cry. Well I'll tell you:

1. It has the effect that the Government is seeking to apply. That is. the more fossil fuel you consume (whether by driving more or having a less fuel-efficient vehicle or getting stuck in traffic jams), the more tax you pay.
2. It requires no new administrative machinery. The system already exists.
3. It doesn't require the consumer to buy an expensive electronic gizmo (which can go wrong).
4. It is impossible to evade. With an electronic tracking system, sooner or later someone will crack it.
5. Foreign motorists/commercial vehicles visiting this country will automatically pay it.

As I said above, it isn't the principle of a carbon usage levy that I object to (provided the revenue is correctly spent - huh, fat chance!). It's the ludicrous tracking system, which will be hugely expensive and totally un-necessary.

 

[rogerh]

Fuel duty increase has been a non-runner since the protests. The difference with road pricing is that it applies a specific, identifiable cost to each journey - as with any journey by public transport. At present the main costs of car ownership are up front; the marginal cost of each mile travelled is small so there's little incentive to manage car use. Road pricing will reduce the number of unnecessary journeys taken, encourage greater use of public transport and ensure that it's the polluter who pays.

 

[skier-hughes]

I'm in agreement with Penners.

What you argue would be better done with a levy on fuel prices, so long as the road fund licence was removed.

Have we not had a fuel duty increase with the last budget? Why? Becasue fuel prices had dropped so an increase only took it back to a point under what we were paying.


Graham

 

[Moo]

"Fuel duty increase has been a non-runner since the protest"

Exactly.

So suggest a scheme that's going to generate an even bigger protest and wait for the avalanche of alternative suggestions.

Then fuel duty increase will not be an imposition but a response to public demand.

 

[rogerh]

What you argue would be better done with a levy on fuel prices, so long as the road fund licence was removed.

Whether or not you agree with it is one thing but fuel duty doesn't allow variable charging for different roads and times of day. Also what you're suggesting is simply increasing taxes. Road pricing doesn't have to involve any additional tax and could be revenue-neutral.

 

[Moo]

" ... and could be revenue-neutral."

But will it?

 

[rogerh]

Well perhaps that's something worth lobbying for.

 

[skier-hughes]

If you think it's going to be revenue neutral I think you're in for a big shock.

Though I teake your point on changing costs for verying roads, but won't that make our less used roads more dangerous as more people use them to cut costs?

What happened with the Toll Road?

Lorries wouldn't use it due to the cost.

Lorries were supposed to be using it to relieve the burden on the M6 so cars could make the local journeys with more ease, as most lorries are passing by.

The cost of Lorries using the Toll road was decreased.

A very few more lorries now use it, but hardly any.

The cost to cars has doubled.

I now plan my journey around using the M6 at off peak times to miss the traffic jams or use other local major routes, and use the Toll as a last resort. Luckily I work from home, so don't have to make the commute to work which many do.

Graham