Petition

elyob said:

The government's proposal to introduce road pricing will mean...

There are several issues connected with this which should trigger very
serious concerns amongst those who believe in open, honest, fair, and
minimal government - rather than the totalitarian system we seem to be
heading towards...

There is the issue of revenue raising. All governments need revenue, of
course, but this is a particularly regressive way of raising it.
Currently about 10% of government revenue is raised from the motoring
activity - regardless of ability to pay. They should be reducing it, or
at least finding progressive ways of collecting it - not simply
maintaining a similarly sized stream for an equally regressive model.

There is the controversial "green-house gas" issue which the government
will be taking full advantage of, including using the established
principle of "divide and rule", demonising the private motoring activity
- which actually emits a very small amount of such gases compared to
other activities. It will be a convenient excuse and cudgel for them.
They should be regulating against emissions, and providing research help
for investigating technology to reduce emissions, not simply pretending
that road charging (which is not directly related to emissions at all)
will help with this too.

There is the monitoring issue. We know that the government are
desperate to keep tabs on all our movements and locations, and that they
will spare no efforts in finding excuses to track us at every
opportunity. We have the 'biometric passport' scam, the oyster card,
ANPR on every street corner, ID cards (with convenient DNA, fingerprint
and other national biometrics databases being collected for police
abuse), the terrorism excuses, the organised crime excuses, the
immigration excuses, ... now they might be able to slip much of it
through with road pricing! There are ways of charging for road use
which don't involve satellites and tracking technology.

There is the necessity to not spend money on creating an adequate road
and motorway network - they'll try every trick in their very thick book
of tricks to convince us that we don't need one - including spinning the
myth that 'more roads create more traffic'!!! Look at the rest of the
developed world, /even/ in Europe - you see road building to provide the
arteries necessary for efficient industry and leisure.

So we see - road pricing is a very desirable measure for this government
to implement. Never mind that there are more effective ways of reducing
congestion - how many of them also have so many (all actually!) of the
other 'stealth' potentials?

Consider your support very seriously!!!

--
Matt B

[email hidden] (Jim Ley) wrote in news:45a4eb73.617050390
@news.individual.net:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Initially, I suspect these will be priced at tuppence a mile.

Pure supposition, no one knows, of course, if it was the case, then it
would be a ludicrous system as you suggest, but I think it's very
unlikely.

Road pricing wouldn't make sense for the declared congestion-busting
purpose unless lightly-used roads were priced less than heavily-used ones
because if that were not so it would make no significant difference to
congestion. People will still need to travel and at roughly the same time
as now and if the route they already use is the cheapest there is no
incentive to change, and thus road pricing will have no effect other than
to increase revenue.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul Boyd

('usenet.dont.work@plusnet') said:

Marcus Red said the following on 10/01/2007 09:00:

Quoted message said:

You seem to have mistaken this group for a car-based one
k-f'd

Oddly enough, being a cyclist doesn't exclude you from also owning a car
if you so wish. Obviously a foreign concept to you.

I own a car. I think this proposal is greatly in the interests of most
motorists - certainly in my interests as a motorist. It isn't just as a
cyclist I seriously suggest a counter-petition.

All of this assumes that congestion is a Bad Thing (TM). Surely,
congestion is the only effective cap on road usage, so removing
congestion will remove that cap and there will be even more car-use.

Besides, I find congested streets fairly safe to cycle on - cars that
can't move present little danger to me.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, cupra

(') said:

Jim Ley said:

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:26:23 -0000, " cupra"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Marcus Red wrote:
>> elyob wrote:
>>> Join up, you buggers 😉
>>>
>>> "
>>> The government's proposal to introduce road pricing
>>
>> [snipped]
>>>
>> You seem to have mistaken this group for a car-based one
>> k-f'd
>
> So cars shifting from expensive Motorways to 'cheaper' local routes
> wouldn't impact on cyclists?

Why would motorways be expensive? They've got the most capacity,
not the least.

That's why they'll charge most at peak times, surely?

No. The charge is based on congestion. If the motorway has more
capacity, it will be less congested. If traffic diverts onto local
roads, they'll be more congested. Under almost all circumstances, the
motorway will be cheaper.

That makes sense, I agree - I can't find anything in the proposals that
actually suggests this.

Den 2007-01-10 02:01:36 skrev elyob <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Join up, you buggers 😉

"
The government's proposal to introduce road pricing will mean you having
to
purchase a tracking device

It will mean you can wave goodbye to traffic jams, ensuring a faster,
safer, more reliable journey for everyone.

There's no reason to have a Soviet pricing system where everybody gets
what nobody would pay for.

Privacy might be an issue, but the rest is just greed and stupidity rolled
into one.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, cupra

(') said:

Jim Ley said:

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:54:06 -0000, " cupra"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Jim Ley wrote:
>>> So cars shifting from expensive Motorways to 'cheaper' local
>>> routes wouldn't impact on cyclists?
>>
>> Why would motorways be expensive? They've got the most capacity,
>> not the least.
>>
>> Jim.
>
> That's why they'll charge most at peak times, surely?

Yes, and any road which is _busy_ will be charged highly, so people
won't be able to go to a local route at peak time, because it will
busy...

= more rat running?

No, less. That's the whole point. One car goes down a rat run, he
gets a cheap ride. A hundred cars do, and every single one of them
gets clobbered. As you don't know whether 99 other silly buggers will
follow you, you avoid rat runs.

How reactive will this be? Will it be a case of 'rat runers' switching
between different routes or, as I suspect, a busy route staying expensive
even if the traffic flow drops? (ie the incentive to use a more suitable
route disappears)

I would dispute two key contentions here.

First is that anti-motoring taxes are 'regressive'. As I understand it, a
regressive tax is one which redistributes wealth from poor to rich. I can't
see how these taxes qualify. They may affect the poor more, since they have
less to spare, but that's not the same thing. These taxes hit all motorists
equally. Good! So they should. The polluter should pay, regardless of their
personal circumstances. If they can't afford to, they'll have to change
their behaviour. Good! That's the idea.

The other is the key claim that private motoring 'emits a very small amount
of such gases compared to other activities'. This is nonsense. According to
the latest govt figures I can lay my hands on, road traffic in 2002
accounted for, among other things, 59% of total carbon monoxide emissions
and 45% of nitrogen dioxide. And yes I know that includes non-private road
traffic like buses...but private cars certainly spew the bulk of those
figures, making 'very small' claims look, in my view, rather silly.

Private car ownership is a major polluter; we have a major and growing
pollution problem; I can see no realistic solution to the green crisis we
face, which is very real, which doesn't include hitting private motorists
hard - and that means serious taxes. Civil liberties, as I said elsewhere,
are a whole nother issue.
"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

elyob said:

The government's proposal to introduce road pricing will mean...

There are several issues connected with this which should trigger very
serious concerns amongst those who believe in open, honest, fair, and
minimal government - rather than the totalitarian system we seem to be
heading towards...

There is the issue of revenue raising. All governments need revenue, of
course, but this is a particularly regressive way of raising it. Currently
about 10% of government revenue is raised from the motoring activity -
regardless of ability to pay. They should be reducing it, or at least
finding progressive ways of collecting it - not simply maintaining a
similarly sized stream for an equally regressive model.

There is the controversial "green-house gas" issue which the government
will be taking full advantage of, including using the established
principle of "divide and rule", demonising the private motoring activity -
which actually emits a very small amount of such gases compared to other
activities. It will be a convenient excuse and cudgel for them. They
should be regulating against emissions, and providing research help for
investigating technology to reduce emissions, not simply pretending that
road charging (which is not directly related to emissions at all) will
help with this too.

There is the monitoring issue. We know that the government are desperate
to keep tabs on all our movements and locations, and that they will spare
no efforts in finding excuses to track us at every opportunity. We have
the 'biometric passport' scam, the oyster card, ANPR on every street
corner, ID cards (with convenient DNA, fingerprint and other national
biometrics databases being collected for police abuse), the terrorism
excuses, the organised crime excuses, the immigration excuses, ... now
they might be able to slip much of it through with road pricing! There
are ways of charging for road use which don't involve satellites and
tracking technology.

There is the necessity to not spend money on creating an adequate road and
motorway network - they'll try every trick in their very thick book of
tricks to convince us that we don't need one - including spinning the myth
that 'more roads create more traffic'!!! Look at the rest of the
developed world, /even/ in Europe - you see road building to provide the
arteries necessary for efficient industry and leisure.

So we see - road pricing is a very desirable measure for this government
to implement. Never mind that there are more effective ways of reducing
congestion - how many of them also have so many (all actually!) of the
other 'stealth' potentials?

Consider your support very seriously!!!

--
Matt B

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, cupra

(') said:

Marcus Red said:

elyob wrote:
> Join up, you buggers 😉
>
> "
> The government's proposal to introduce road pricing

[snipped]
>
You seem to have mistaken this group for a car-based one
k-f'd

So cars shifting from expensive Motorways to 'cheaper' local routes
wouldn't impact on cyclists?

They would not be 'cheaper' local routes. They'd be 'more expensive'
local routes, if the traffic switched to them. If you don't
understand that, you don't understand how the proposed scheme works:
it tracks congestion, and charges dynamically.

How do you define 'local route' though - I'm sure that people will drive
many miles out of their way if they find it saves a few bob....

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I want to see this scheme introduced as soon as possible. How
do I set up a petition to get it expedited?

IIRC, there already is one - but it pales into insignificance compared to
the petition against road pricing. I've just searched and the most popular
pro-road pricing petition I could find (with 54 signatures) is at
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/yes2roadpricing/ - which petitions:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Introduce road pricing
nationwide and channel the money into improving public transport and
conditions for walking and cycling."

In contrast the anti-road-pricing petition is expected to reach 200,000
signatures by the end of this week and garner a quarter million signatures
by the closing date at the end of February.

AP said:

I would dispute two key contentions here.

First is that anti-motoring taxes are 'regressive'. As I understand it, a
regressive tax is one which redistributes wealth from poor to rich. I can't
see how these taxes qualify. They may affect the poor more, since they have
less to spare, but that's not the same thing. These taxes hit all motorists
equally. Good! So they should.

As income rises the proportion paid in road taxes decreases (being as it
isn't related to income). That /is/ a regressive tax.

Quoted message said:

The polluter should pay, regardless of their
personal circumstances. If they can't afford to, they'll have to change
their behaviour. Good! That's the idea.

The 'polluter' already pays 5x the amount Stern recommends.

Quoted message said:

The other is the key claim that private motoring 'emits a very small amount
of such gases compared to other activities'. This is nonsense. According to
the latest govt figures I can lay my hands on, road traffic in 2002
accounted for, among other things, 59% of total carbon monoxide emissions
and 45% of nitrogen dioxide. And yes I know that includes non-private road
traffic like buses...but private cars certainly spew the bulk of those
figures, making 'very small' claims look, in my view, rather silly.

According to government figures Cars and taxis consume 22 million tonnes
of oil per year. Domestic electricity and gas consumption is equivalent
to 53 million tonnes of oil per year - 2.4 times the amount!!!

Quoted message said:

Private car ownership is a major polluter; we have a major and growing
pollution problem; I can see no realistic solution to the green crisis we
face, which is very real, which doesn't include hitting private motorists
hard - and that means serious taxes.

Even if you could support the notion that car ownership is a major
polluter, how does that support a road charging scheme, which is not
proportional to emissions (fuel duty actually is), but to time of day
travelled and which is intended to actually tackle congestion? You
think it's OK to pollute when the roads are quiet? It is crazy.

Quoted message said:

Civil liberties, as I said elsewhere,
are a whole nother issue.

Yes - so why support an anti-civil liberty measure when there are less
controversial measures which target the actual stated aim better?

--
Matt B

cupra said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, cupra

(') said:

Marcus Red wrote:
> elyob wrote:
>> Join up, you buggers 😉
>>
>> "
>> The government's proposal to introduce road pricing
>
> [snipped]
>>
> You seem to have mistaken this group for a car-based one
> k-f'd

So cars shifting from expensive Motorways to 'cheaper' local routes
wouldn't impact on cyclists?

They would not be 'cheaper' local routes. They'd be 'more expensive'
local routes, if the traffic switched to them. If you don't
understand that, you don't understand how the proposed scheme works:
it tracks congestion, and charges dynamically.

How do you define 'local route' though - I'm sure that people will drive
many miles out of their way if they find it saves a few bob....

They still have to get to work on time. All this talk of driving miles
out of their way to using single-track road which is priced at tuppence
a mile seems a little far-fetched. Next someone is going to suggest
that people will be using BOATs (or whatever the govt. are calling
them these days).

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Matt B said:

AP wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Even if you could support the notion that car ownership is a major
polluter, how does that support a road charging scheme, which is not
proportional to emissions (fuel duty actually is), but to time of day
travelled and which is intended to actually tackle congestion? You
think it's OK to pollute when the roads are quiet? It is crazy.

<snip>

That's my view - if we increase tax on fuel usage we'll penalise the
inefficient and give people an incentive to either get off the road and use
an alternative (where available), limit car use or change to a more
efficient motor vehicle.

Making people pay more while sitting in a jam (because that's what'll happen
IMO) only benefits the Treasury.

Andy Leighton said:

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:23:37 -0000, cupra <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, cupra
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

> Marcus Red wrote:
>> elyob wrote:
>>> Join up, you buggers 😉
>>>
>>> "
>>> The government's proposal to introduce road pricing
>>
>> [snipped]
>>>
>> You seem to have mistaken this group for a car-based one
>> k-f'd
>
> So cars shifting from expensive Motorways to 'cheaper' local routes
> wouldn't impact on cyclists?

They would not be 'cheaper' local routes. They'd be 'more expensive'
local routes, if the traffic switched to them. If you don't
understand that, you don't understand how the proposed scheme works:
it tracks congestion, and charges dynamically.

How do you define 'local route' though - I'm sure that people will
drive many miles out of their way if they find it saves a few bob....

They still have to get to work on time. All this talk of driving
miles
out of their way to using single-track road which is priced at
tuppence
a mile seems a little far-fetched.

I don't know - an extra 15mins or an extra £10 per day?

Quoted message said:

Next someone is going to suggest
that people will be using BOATs (or whatever the govt. are calling
them these days).

See- more 4x4 sales as a consequence 😉

AP said:

There are two quite distinct issues here - civil liberties and taxation.
Objecting to 'them' keeping tabs on you at all times is one thing - and a
perfectly valid gripe, I would've thought.

'All times' is considerably different to 'while you're driving'.

Anthony

Will Cove said:

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I want to see this scheme introduced as soon as possible. How
do I set up a petition to get it expedited?

IIRC, there already is one - but it pales into insignificance compared to
the petition against road pricing.

So? We know that the motor transport lobby is a very organised and
powerful, and individual drivers exhibit irrational behaviour. We
only have to look at the fuel protests from a few years ago to see that.

Road pricing (in some form or other) is inevitable IMO. It may not happen
in this govt's lifetime but I would bet that it will in the next 10-15
years. Like some others, I believe it will be a good thing - both for
cyclists and eventually for drivers.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

cupra said:

Matt B said:

AP wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Even if you could support the notion that car ownership is a major
polluter, how does that support a road charging scheme, which is not
proportional to emissions (fuel duty actually is), but to time of day
travelled and which is intended to actually tackle congestion? You
think it's OK to pollute when the roads are quiet? It is crazy.

<snip>

That's my view

I think that most people who have thought it through would arrive at the
same conclusion.

Quoted message said:

- if we increase tax on fuel usage we'll penalise the
inefficient and give people an incentive to either get off the road and use
an alternative (where available), limit car use or change to a more
efficient motor vehicle.

Increase it? If it was reduced to one fifth of the current amount it
would adequately cover what Stern calculated as a high estimate figure
for the cost of CO2 emissions.

Quoted message said:

Making people pay more while sitting in a jam (because that's what'll happen
IMO) only benefits the Treasury.

Exactly. Revenue is a more important factor in this than congestion,
otherwise they would have selected a policy which was primarily aimed at
reducing congestion.

--
Matt B

cupra said:

Making people pay more while sitting in a jam (because that's what'll
happen IMO) only benefits the Treasury.

Not if it reduces congestion. Anyway, money that goes to the Treasury should
benefit all of us.

Anthony

Anthony Jones said:

AP said:

There are two quite distinct issues here - civil liberties and taxation.
Objecting to 'them' keeping tabs on you at all times is one thing - and a
perfectly valid gripe, I would've thought.

'All times' is considerably different to 'while you're driving'.

For many it is very close to the /same/ thing. Where their car is -
home, work, shops - is where /they/ are.

The test is whether a system which would be at least as efficient at
tackling congestion, but which doesn't have the civil liberty issue,
could conceivably be devised.

--
Matt B

Anthony Jones said:

cupra said:

Making people pay more while sitting in a jam (because that's what'll
happen IMO) only benefits the Treasury.

Not if it reduces congestion.

The test is whether a system which would be at least as efficient at
tackling congestion, but which doesn't have the revenue benefit, could
conceivably be devised.

--
Matt B

Simon Brooke said the following on 10/01/2007 13:26:

Quoted message said:

They would not be 'cheaper' local routes. They'd be 'more expensive' local
routes, if the traffic switched to them. If you don't understand that, you
don't understand how the proposed scheme works: it tracks congestion, and
charges dynamically.

I didn't realise that's how it works. Certainly earlier proposals were
based on the fact that each road basically had a fixed price per mile,
hence the concern about people dashing to the cheaper roads. I think
I'd better do some more reading up, but I'm still opposed to the idea of
Big Brother monitoring my movements!

The fundamental problem still remains that people need to get from A to
B, and this proposal won't change the fact that the same number of car
journeys will still be made. If the extra revenue was *genuinely* going
towards alternative transport instead of the black hole, I might be more
sympathetic to it. Or were they going to remove the existing tax we
already pay per mile?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/