What is the logic of proposed per mile road use charging?

magyar

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

Me as well, but in all of my trips to the US, I've NEVER seen anyone not obeying the School Bus 'laws'.

MTC

Me neither. In fact the Americans' attitude to the letter of the law is staggering; they don't have that 'common sense' gene which I pride the British in so much. (Actually I think there's a few more genes, and a chromosome or two, that our American friends are missing, but that's another matter....)

Murphy_The_Cat

redux wrote:

Of course public transport here used to run without the huge subsidies that other countries pour into it. Years ago, when consultants from abroad came here to see how we could run our railways so efficiently and at less cost to the taxpayer, they went away shaking their heads in embarrassed disbelief at the state of things. And since railway privatisation the subsidy by taxpayers has doubled ...

Not-quite tongue-in-cheek time -

It is possible to run a car for from not much over ten pence a mile to well over £1 - a large part of running cost is depreciation.

Buses and trains cost about 20 to 40 pence a mile - so paradoxically maybe the people who drive alone in the most expensive cars have more to save by using public transport, but somehow I think they are the ones who are interested in paying to have the plebs in old cars forced off the roads ...

Motorway tolls in France already cost more than the fuel used ...

or are more interested in writing off the depreciation against the profits of their companies and reducing their company tax bills.

MTC

droopsnout

Ye Gods, I've spent too much time on here today, but i can't resist ...

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

My dismissal of the likes of LDNPA is valid, I supply you with some links about their activities if you like.
Likewise, the reopen the Canal group are so unrealistic in their aims as to be laughable - but still they attract generoud funding for their pet project (little features such as the M6 repeatedly crossing the canal with a few feet of clearence, bridges that are no longer water tight and vast swathes of canal that have become factories, gardens, roads and allotments seems to have been missed by them.
So yes, these people truly are deserving of scorn.

There you go again. I didn't bring these groups up - you did!

I only suggested that you might stand for office with your local council, or maybe county county council. But you have dismissed those very abruptly! I had been hoping to see that you played some philanthropic or altruistic role in your community, but you may not, as you don't allude to it. (I realise that you may wish to keep such things out of the public domain).

If you want to sit at your PC/Mac/whatever moaning about ineffective public bodies, perhaps you really might think about getting in there, changing things, and doing some good. On a not-for-profit basis, of course.

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

regarding the distribution of the products of The Lake District, absolutely nothing to do with the leadership that I've shown here - as i said previously, i expend my energies where I can actually do some good - like in my own business. I leave the squandering of billions of pounds on pie in the sky schemes to others - they don't need any help from the likes of me, their ability to waste billions of pounds is clear for anyone to see.

See? This cynicism does no-one any good! It's funny, but it's not actually contributing.

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

As for winding you up ! Don't take yourself so seriously.

This from someone who actually thinks I looked at his profile, or something?

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

T'internet forums are where people come to discuss differing views and disagree with each other without falling out.
You don't agree with what I've posted and I think that you are talking out of your bum, but I won't fall out with you about it. I might feel sorry for you, but I'd still happily talk to you about this (or any other subject).

Thank you! As bums go, mine's reasonably polite!

redux

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

or are more interested in writing off the depreciation against the profits of their companies and reducing their company tax bills.

MTC

- and hoping that their shares in mobile phone companies don't continue to stagnate in value

magyar

redux wrote:

Buses and trains cost about 20 to 40 pence a mile - so paradoxically maybe the people who drive alone in the most expensive cars have more to save by using public transport, but somehow I think they are the ones who are interested in paying to have the plebs in old cars forced off the roads ...

Motorway tolls in France already cost more than the fuel used ...

Most cars don't depreciate by anything like 90p per mile; it's more like 5-10p. Running costs are again more like 10p per mile, so total running costs are more like 25-30p per mile and that's probably over the top.

And of course, that takes as many people as you can get into the car...

droopsnout

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

I suspect that you copied my name from a post - in which case, you have copied the link to my profile. So if someone clicks on my name in that post, it links straight through to my profile.

That is, indeed, what I did. Thanks for the explanation.

droopsnout

Interesting discussion. I've learned a lot.

Don't know if I'll ever get so much time again to banter on one topic, so I'll just say thanks to all, but especially magyar, for the input.

It's been a cathartic experience!

magyar

:embarasse :embarasse :embarasse

Aw shucks... ta.

AMO

droopsnout wrote:

Please understand. Every time you pass a law, you restrict freedom. Obviously, some freedoms are worth losing. But just how far are you prepared to let things drift in the name of, say, the fight against terrorism, or the need to control paedophiles? It is a serious question, and everyone will have their own point of equilibrium, if I can put it like that.

My own feelings, and thank God I'm still free to express them, is that I don't want the State to have the possibility of carrying out surveillance on me without restriction. Is that too much to ask?

I understand your view. I am not saying that the government has the right to our details. I am saying however, when balancing giving up what you perceive as freedoms against measureable improvements for the fight against crime and also a method (by using I.T.) to gain a level of convinience, then I am all for it.

Obviously if there were no benefits, why would I want to give up these 'freedoms'? It would make no sense whatsoever.

But I am a practical person. Recently there was this big thing in the news where the inventor of the DNA database said that he was unhappy when people are cleared of any wrongdoing and their DNA is still kept as this would imply that they are a possible criminal. To me, its not an issue. If everyone's DNA was stored on the database, I'd be happy about it. We know DNA helps a lot in rape cases and other crimes.

Whilst I would not like my details registered for the sake of it, its not a problem if it means that crime can be drastically reduced as everyone can be identified by their DNA. I really don't have a problem with it.

Its not just a question of freedoms, its weighing whether keeping those freedoms are worth suffering higher levels of crime and in my book it isn't. Besides, you call them freedoms, but to me in what does it restrict my freedom???? Does it stop me travelling abroad? Does it stop me going to the supermarket? The only possible thing it stops is the freedom of choice to not have a device fitted to a car. But is it really that bad? We don't have the 'freedom' to not have a tax disc on the front of our cars or a licence plate (your car's Id card), but is it really such a bad thing?

If we took away licence plates from every car I am sure that everyone would agree that crime would increase and traceability would be drastically reduced. But is it worth doing so to give people more freedom of choice over whether they want a licence plate?

It really is not a big thing. It's only a big thing because people get paranoid and fight change. However, when they become victims and see how ineffective the police force is, they then realise their contribution to the police force's ineffectiveness.

If you go out of your house right now and steal anything from a store or smash the window to any vehicle, unless someone can immediately positively id you such that the police have a 100% chance of solving the case, when the victim rings up the police today, all they will be given is a crime number because they are stretched to the limit and because the chance of finding the culprits is not worth their time. Neither is processing the criminal through the courts really. They will not even bother coming out to you unless there is any chance of someone getting hurt in the accident.

It is because we have chosen that we want the freedom of not having id cards that anyone stopped cannot be id'ed correctly. And yes, if the police stop you and you say your name is Luke Skywalker, they have to assess whether its worth taking you down to the police station to further id you. Imagine all the teenagers causing trouble doing this - trust me, the world isn't as rosy as you paint it in the U.K. and its the doing of the people against change 'because it goes against freedoms'.

The question is one of balance and in today's world, anything that results in greater levels of fairness and/or improves security/justice gets my vote.

AMO

AMO

albertross wrote:

AMO,

So if some chief police officer suggested that we all be chipped at birth with a gps tracking device with built-in microphone, you would be all for it?

I think you are being somewhat naive.. If the technology is there, the authorities will use it, and use spurious anti-crime, anti-terrorism, and now green arguments to justify it. Do you really think they will propose a short range pass the ganty monitoring black box, when they can put in full gps monitoring instead? I can hear the arguments now.. "It will help cut crime, terrorism, speeding, and enable easy changes to charging mechanisms"

What you see in enemy of the state, truman, and now minority report is no longer far fetched, it is becoming a reality. Has crime stopped? Do cars still get stolen? Do millions still drive without tax and insurance? Do kids still get booze under 18? Is every crime solved? Is every crime investigated? Are the prisons empty?

Come up with any technological solution to control the people, and criminals will come up with a way around it. Passports used to be a means of proving identity, but they can be easily forged. So they put rfid chips in, which can be forged. How long will it take before black boxes in cars are forged, or stolen, or hacked. Immobilisers are commonplace in cars now, so you get your window put through and keys stolen instead..

If you start charging people for road use, don't be surprised if the number of car thefts go up as a result.

Some technologies take time to get used to. Even now many of us carry electronic devices to help us, such as PDAs. This will extend in the future such that at some point having an id device implanted will not seem such an alien concept. However, it is not fair to go to such an extreme view today when this specific topic would be something discussed 20-30 years down the line with natural progression. Today it would be alien and most people, out of fear of the unknown would natually oppose it.

Yes, any technology can be used fraudulantly. But this does not mean you do not use any technology right? You still use your car even though someone could steal it, use it in a crime and pinpoint it to you? That doesn't stop you using a car? Or does it?

For every argument against the use of technology because it could result in identity theft, there is an argument for it.

And again, its balance. At the moment, lets assume that the government can abuse the system because it has enough information about you. Even Tescos could do that soon as it has enough information about a lot of people dabbing its finger in every pie from groceries to loyalty cards to insurance. But does that mean you'd never go to Tescos? Surely your not as naive as me and take precautions by not going to such potential companies that could result in an employee stealing or tampering with your identity?

As I said, the possibility is there, but the probability of your information being abused is low. As it me being naive or you being paranoid?

But its balance. If an id card means that anyone tampering with their id card could be charged or not having one could be charged its better than having people fobbing off the police knowing that the police don't have the resources to take everyone to the police station and question everyone.

Most people have been victims of crime in their life. Few have been victim's of the government. Is the fight against crime more important or the fight against the government?

Answer that question when your shop has a brick through the window or your car. Answer that when you are mugged for money or intimidated. Answer that when you know that because of your belief that not supporting the government because it violates your freedom. Tell me that its worth it. Cos I don't think it is. Yes, in reality, maybe the government has nothing better to do than spend millions of pounds on covert operations to strip your identity and rewrite it. I'm sure that the government has nothing better to do!

AMO