Another petition

[NT]

Something has got to be done about the traffic problem,

This is the sort of muddled thinking that leads to many really bad policies and laws. There is no 'got to be' about any of it, if we find a better system, great, if not we stay with the best we have.

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.

how about none of the above, that sounds like the best option to me.

The reality is there are other solutions that have been proposed. One is a system of overhead rails with small automated passenger vehicles - theres a lot more to it but thats the basic idea.

Another one I personally like is gocart lanes with cars kept out by safety barriers. A gocart takes around 1/6th the road space of a car, and is far cheaper to put on the road and run. Because of its far lower inherent danger, much less need be spent on safety systems to get the same end level of safety. Etc etc.

If one thing is clear, what will work best is a mixed approach system with a number of options for travellers. The present car-centric system causes most of its problems by the failure to address this efectively.


NT

 

[bower1]

The reality is there are other solutions that have been proposed. One is a system of overhead rails with small automated passenger vehicles - theres a lot more to it but thats the basic idea

I agree other systems have been proposed, but how soon are they likely to become adopted?

Our transport system has hardly changed since the sixties. I only use that time as the example, because other than safety, very little has changed in car technology since then. Cars are not particularly more economical. They are more reliable but other than that, much as they were in concept.

Back then, people were suggesting lots of alternatives, but none have come. In the near future, I cannot see anything changing very much either, so dealing with the problem we have seems to be the best solution.

Also, boats, trains, planes are much as they were then, with improvements, but no major changes. So when are we to see any alternatives?

 

[bower1]

Just to switch 'sides' and be cynical about it for a moment, the system could be a way to justify the money the EU has spent putting the alternative GPS system in place so we don't need to rely on the Americans :wink:

 

[Gervase]

Food for thought in The Times here.

 

[Moo]

"The technology may also cost the motorist nothing because the DfT hopes to “piggyback” on technology being fitted to many modern cars, such as satellite navigation systems.

The Government has never suggested that the charging system would be used to monitor the speed of vehicles."


Note that lovely weasel word in the first line ('may') which isn't the same as 'will'.
And what about the cars that don't have sat-nav? An awful lot of us drive older cars; are we to understand that the government will subsidise the technology (at taxpayers' expense, of course).

And as for the second paragraph; knowing this government's track record, just because they've 'never suggested' something doesn't mean they won't do it.

 

[Penners]

Road pricing doesn't have to involve any additional tax and could be revenue-neutral.

How do you work that out? And do you really think the Government won't use it as a way of increasing their income from motorists?

 

[rogerh]

How do you work that out?

I don't have to work it out. It's a statement of fact. (Whereas your suggestion of raising fuel duty will inevitably mean extra taxation.)

And do you really think the Government won't use it as a way of increasing their income from motorists?

I have no more idea than you do. I'm not going to dismiss a potentially good idea because a government might use it to raise extra revenue. I'll base my decision on the actual proposals, not the scaremongering of a motoring lobby group.

 

[skier-hughes]

Raising fuel duty could also be revenue neutral, they work out the income of rfl, find out how many litres of fuel are purchased each year and work out how much to raise the price of fuel.

 

[Moo]

How do you work that out?

I don't have to work it out. It's a statement of fact.

I'm sorry to be more than usually dim, but could you explain (in very simple language) exactly what 'revenue-neutral' means and how it is a statement of fact.

 

[rogerh]

I'm sorry to be more than usually dim, but could you explain (in very simple language) exactly what 'revenue-neutral' means and how it is a statement of fact.

The total amount of revenue raised (in this case from motorists) remains the same, i.e. road tax and/or fuel duty are reduced by the same amount as is raised through road pricing.

How is "could be" not factual? It depends on a political decision, not a law of nature. I believe the government is proposing that it will be revenue-neutral.

 

[bower1]

One insurance company (Norwich Union I think) has already started fitting systems to monitor mileages travelled etc. although obviously optional.

 

[skier-hughes]

It's just made it to BBC news

 

[Nemesis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2009974,00.html

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1997092,00.html

 

[Flyfisher]

How is "could be" not factual? It depends on a political decision, not a law of nature. I believe the government is proposing that it will be revenue-neutral.

The issue isn't pedantry, it's whether anyone actually believes the government when it says things like this. Personally, I don't.

Something has got to be done about the traffic problem,

This is the sort of muddled thinking that leads to many really bad policies and laws. There is no 'got to be' about any of it, if we find a better system, great, if not we stay with the best we have.

I agree. Why is it that 'the motorist' is spoken of like some 'other' group of the population about which 'something must be done' when the vast majority of the population is dependent on the car for the vast majority of their travel.

It might be practical to do without a car in a big city (and I have two friends in London without cars - although they hire them at weekends to go away), but anywhere else it's the only practical option. If there was a better option it would probably have surfaced by now. Certainly cars are not a perfect solution (whatever that would be) but I suggest they are the
best we currently have.

 

[bower1]

This is the sort of muddled thinking that leads to many really bad policies and laws. There is no 'got to be' about any of it, if we find a better system, great, if not we stay with the best we have.

I'm suprised so much has been made of a relatively innocent (or innocently intended) comment.

But really by definition, if its not a problem, nothing needs to be done about it, so the question is whether there is a traffic problem or not, not whether something should be done!

Why is it that 'the motorist' is spoken of like some 'other' group of the population about which 'something must be done' when the vast majority of the population is dependent on the car for the vast majority of their travel.

I was certainly not bashing 'motorists' as a group. Only commenting on what I see as an ever increasing problem of congestion.

I too live in the country an could not practically do so without a car. My nearest public transport is 3 miles away.

 

[Maris]

The idea that motorists would be charged more to use 'busier' roads is worrying. Would we see thousands of miles of country lanes straightened out to cope with increased traffic? Will owners find it easier to demolish older buildings because they don't have the foundations to cope with lorries etc using the roads the buildings face onto? Offering a financial incentive to use back roads doesn't appear to be a good thing. It can't bode well fo whats left of this country's historic landscape.

 

[Flyfisher]

so the question is whether there is a traffic problem or not, not whether something should be done!

I agree with that - but I find such discussions are usually predicated on the dogma that there is a traffic problem.

I rarely come across traffic congestion, probably because I don't commute. Personally, I'd say it's commuting that's the problem and something should be done about that. Any behavioural convention that requires millions of people to travel the same routes at the same time is bound to cause congestion. This is not just a car problem either, as anyone who commutes by public transport will know.

There are other ways to solve commuting congestion than just trying to tax people off the roads (which is proven not to work) but it seems to me that the 'car is bad' dogma has taken hold leading to the unthinking demonising of motorists, who must be punished (=increasingly taxed) for their sins.

 

[rogerh]

I imagine that if we already had road pricing and the government proposed scrapping it and introducing an annual £150 tax on car ownership and a 500% surcharge on the price of petrol there would be at least as great an outcry. The devil will be in the detail but road pricing could offer a much better and fairer solution.

 

[bower1]

I rarely come across traffic congestion, probably because I don't commute

Nor me, but I think that makes it easier to notice how bad its got.

But I am concerned that those of us in the less busy areas will become 'tax victims' when trying to solve the congestion problem elsewhere.

 

[NT]

But really by definition, if its not a problem, nothing needs to be done about it, so the question is whether there is a traffic problem or not, not whether something should be done!

I'm finding it a little hard to see how the idea that there isnt a problem could be a runner. Some towns reach gridlock every single day, and it adds up to a whole lot of person hours wasted.

What should be done about it is another matter, and at the moment there is no clear indication that there is anything that woud really benefit us as a whole. Without wishing to state the obvious, if drivers can just as well drive when the roads are not congested, that they will do already. Any measure to penalise us/them will merely lead to a less optimal solution than now. You dont make someone with measles any more well by painting over the spots.

But hey, its another opportunity to take our money. Labour has done this like no other party before it, living costs have gone up massively tyvm tony. Makes its colours as the party of the rich all too clear.


NT