Petition against road pricing

judderman62

AMO wrote:

and people looking for their next job will have to take distance into account more harshly.

AMO

That's fine if jobs were in very plentiful supply - they're not.

I don't feel people should be ALMOST forced into moving home or jobs because it's too expensive to get between the two.

AMO

judderman62 wrote:

You certainly make some good points there.

I think one thing that seems to be a misconception out there is that there almost seems to be a view that there are loads and loads of people out there making lots of unnecessary journeys and unnecessarily at peak times.

Whilst I can accept there may be some - school runs where walking or public transport may be realistic options, there are a great many of us who have little/no realistic other options.

Take the peak time thing - we travel at those times because most employers require us to work 0830-1800 (ish) - we have no say in this.

My journey to work is approx 30 mins (an extra 10-12 mins at the moment due to roadworks on the M60) If I was to attempt this on public transport it would take approx 2 hrs 45 mins and involve 2 bus journeys, 1 train journey and 3 lots of walking.

Clearly this is not a reasonable expectation.

Thanks.

No, I don't think that journeys are unnecessary. Far from it and I don't think its feasible to get people to car share either. You're in the same boat as myself. In fact anyone that lives outside of town and/or goes to work in a place out of town will often need transport into town, then between towns and then out of town. This is often very unfeasible.

However, all these are moves in the right direction and won't be abrupt and overnight. Implementing this will take around 10-20 years to be realistic and the charges will spread over that accordingly. It will work out for the best. I'm not saying it will work out cheaper, but they way we're headed, its going to get more expensive anyway so I don't think that anyone should be under any expectation that it will be cheaper going forward even if there are no changes.

AMO

AMO

judderman62 wrote:

That's fine if jobs were in very plentiful supply - they're not. I don't feel people should be ALMOST forced into moving home or jobs because it's too expensive to get between the two.

No I don't think so either. But this isn't going to happen overnight. No country can afford to implement this overnight! We'll be fine. It's the long term value that's important and I don't know many systems that are more efficient than this is.

It's really good because if a car is stolen, the moment it takes to a highway or motorway, its audit can be traced immediately. Cuts car crime down drastically. Although there are those that believe that criminals have the right to annonymity and that its a violation of human rights and that its big brother government and that its.....yadda...yadda...yadda....;)

AMO

doublegandt

AMO wrote:

Look at it this way. We can continue to pay the same way we do now - which basically favours the drivers that use the roads the most, or we can look at ways to change that.

What??? The way we pay now does NOT favour drivers who use the roads the most! The more you drive - the more fuel you buy - the more tax you pay. What is fairer than that? People seem to forget how much tax they pay per litre. Check it out - it's staggering.

In fact - if you drive an inefficent vehicle - you also pay more tax than someone with an economical car who drives the same number of miles.

So we have a perfectly fair system already that taxes people the more they drive and what kind of vehicle they drive!


Lets be realistic...............

Paying per mile IS just going to be a way to raise more money.
But the truth hides behind the misdirection of the false reason for the introduction. Examples...

Speed (or 'safety') cameras - the only two counties in the UK to have reduced accidents are those two that do not have speed cameras. And yet the cameras offical reason in all other counties - safety.

Increased security costs at airports - new passports (seen the cost of these now!). All done in the name of security. Of course, the 'bad' guys can't buy forged passports can they!!!

So, pay-as-you-drive - the offical reason - save the planet! Nonsense - unless we want to turn the clock back 100 years (actually 100 years ago we generated more pollution!) - then charging people is NOT the answer.

The answer, as in all matters regarding the 'advancement' of mankind, is technological innovations. The answer to polluting cars/factories/power plants lies in new developments that research and development provide.

This has been proved time and time again - fire, the wheel, steam engines, electricity, telecommunications, flight, vaccines, internet etc etc - the list is - by definition of invention - endless.

I would be more open to increasing the cost of motoring IF the revenue was directed at R&D to develop a proper answer. But that is not going to happen is it.

AMO

doublegandt wrote:

Lets be realistic...............
It IS just a way to raise more money.

Not really. If we want to be realistic, the only facts that are realistic are:
1) Tax on roads are going to increase regardless of which direction we go in.
2) We can go forward using a technique that has a chance of working and is proved to work very efficiently in other countries or we can stick with what we've got and continue to suffer with increasing road congestion in the worse possible way going forwards because of 'unlimited road use passes' as current taxing works.

Anyone familiar with the M6 Toll road? If we continue the way we currently operate, all there will be is more M6 Toll roads. The government can't afford better roads so it will all be outsourced to companies that will charge through the roof.

Take the M6 Toll road for example. Regardless of how far you travel down the route you pay the full price as if you had used the whole toll. Is this reasonable? The reason why this is the case is because:
a) People are not going to want to stop at every junction to pay the next leg of the journey.
b) People do not have black boxes in their car to register with the tolls as they go through. Therefore its all a manual process.

No matter what happens we're going to pay more in the future. The question is whether this is operated fairly as the proposals going forward are. Or we can oppose it and live as it is today with its many flaws and then get slaughtered when the government lets other companies toll the roads which then bring in no/less income for the government and allows them much less control.

AMO

AMO

albertross wrote:

All it takes is a pair of snippers/pull the fuse out, and the gps tracker is dead.

Car crime, plate cloning, and avoidance will increase as a result.

There are anpr systems all over the place now, do you think that means that all stolen cars are recovered or traced?

All it takes is not being bothered to pay for your tax disc - what's your point?

Besides, if your car cannot be automatically detected by the tolls, you have to queue to pay manually because the toll bars won't lift to let the car through. By all means destroy the black box.

Like anything they can be tampered with, in much the same way as mobile phones can. Yes, you can change the identity of the mobile SIM or the phone it holds, but it takes some doing and even then whilst your connected you can be tracked. The toll system works exactly the same way.

AMO

AMO

doublegandt wrote:

What??? The way we pay now does NOT favour drivers who use the roads the most! The more you drive - the more fuel you buy - the more tax you pay. What is fairer than that? People seem to forget how much tax they pay per litre. Check it out - it's staggering.

Yes, but:
1) Foreign drivers especially lorry drivers with large fuel tanks fill up before entering the U.K. to do their delivery. They avoid the price per mile tax currently imposed for the most part. Our boys are losing out.
2) We currently pay the annual car tax which should probably be reduced in favour more of how much you drive. This is debateable as some think that the annual car tax is a representation of the car you choose to drive before the per mile petrol tax.
3) The toll taxing using black boxes is designed to tax longer journeys. People need to go to supermarkets and do the school runs etc. But do people need to do long commutes? The reason we do is because of jobs but like to live where we currently are. However, because of this, we clog up the motorways experienced by most motorists every day. Therefore we need a system not to tax those that doing everyday essential journeys but more for those that choose to take on a job that requires a high proportion of time in a car every day. This applies heavily to myself and many others in the market, but its something that needs to have its balance addressed. Furthermore, because the tax on car journeys, whilst not cheap, is still very cheap in comparison public transport, the case can never be argued for public transport.

These days, people even commute by plane from France which is ridiculous. The costs to the environment to carry a person to and from France everyday is unacceptable.

Whatever the solution, the way the government is going is at least a step in the right direction. I think that they don't mind people being against existing proposals, but at least come up with a better alternative that will get support.

At the moment, the taxing based on distance on major roads is a workable solution already implemented in other countries. You can't really argue that it doesn't work or that its only a means for more taxing. Either way we'll pay more, so in my opinion, at least we'll have something that will work.

AMO

doublegandt

AMO - It is envitable that motoring WILL cost more in the future. Most things will go up in price. No one is asking for the price of motoring to drop!

In fact fuel tax went up 2p per litre a few weeks ago.

My point is that fuel tax is ALREADY in place - no need to put expensive boxes in cars.

So why not put 10p/20p or 50p more per litre on tax? That would stop people driving.

There is another agenda that should not be overlooked. You will be tracked everywhere. So your monthly usage bill could very easily have a fixed penatly fine for that slight over speed limit when going downhill at 3am. Great.

And the lie that these boxes will save the planet! Why? Because the whole intention is to price people off the road. Simple as that - remove cars - reduce pollution. Have you any idea how much per mile the cost will go UP when a high percentage of vehicles don't get used anymore. HM Gov't will still need the same amount of money out a smaller number of people.

So this new idea favours people with money. The city dwelling 4WD/Offroad hurrah henrys - they will pay - and can afford to pay - whatever it costs.

Whats this rubbish about foreign drivers? So they will put boxes in their vehicles will they? And how will this be policed? Vehicles checked as they come in? If so, why not just check every vehicles fuel tank as they come in - and charge them tax on the fuel they bring in. No box needed then.

You cannot just solve problems by pricing it out of reach. If that is the case then the NHS problems can be solved by charging when you have NHS treatment. Don't forget, most people pay taxes already to pay for the NHS - but hey - charge £200 a treatment - suddenly lots of people get 'well' because they don't attend treatments. Another problem 'solved'.

Technology is the only way to control mans effect on the planet. Or all adopt a Kumer Rouge mentally and go back to year zero. I know what I want.

AMO

albertross wrote:

What they have floated is a congestion charging scheme using gps tracking, which has no need for toll booths, is not limited to major roads, and can be changed at will, to include any road, any charging scheme, be it mileage, time, stationary time in traffic.

The test bed was London, and that just uses number plate recognition camera's and automatic fines, not toll booths.

I don't understand why you think it is a good thing, because it will punish all those nasty foreign truck drivers who don't pay our petrol prices, any increases in their costs will be passed on to the consumer.

I definately disagree with GPS tracking. Out of all the different ideas floating around, GPS tracking is certainly not the way forward. GPS as you say will be more easy for criminals to circumvent. I have not seen many details of the London test bed using this system though. Problem with GPS is that the computer system gathering the data is in the car. This will lead to many problems with crime. The unit will also be expensive for each driver and will more likely to need to have software upgrades compared to a fairly dumb box.

The reason why we need to charge foreign drivers is to put them on an equal footing with U.K. drivers. The reason why logistics companies in the U.K. are up in arms and do blockades is because they get stung to the point of bankruptcy when petrol prices rise too much.

For commercial vehicles, the cost for road tax is much higher. After that there is the cost of petrol. However, foreign vehicles will not pay the road tax - where they come into the country all the time, they pay a much reduced rate simply because otherwise Britain is uncompetitive.

Therefore they can undercut U.K. companies because not only do they pay little to no road tax but they also circumvent petrol tax by filling up in France. Therefore the cost of a delivery to the U.K. is much cheaper for a foreign driver. If charges were made on the road itself, unless foreign drivers have learnt how to fly, its a fairer system.

Then let competition bring down prices in the usual way. At least we won't find that in 20 years time all british logistics companies have moved abroad which in turn means that all tax generated from these companies go to foreign countries.

AMO

AMO

doublegandt wrote:

My point is that fuel tax is ALREADY in place - no need to put expensive boxes in cars.

So why not put 10p/20p or 50p more per litre on tax? That would stop people driving.

There is another agenda that should not be overlooked. You will be tracked everywhere. So your monthly usage bill could very easily have a fixed penatly fine for that slight over speed limit when going downhill at 3am. Great.

And the lie that these boxes will save the planet! Why? Because the whole intention is to price people off the road. Simple as that - remove cars - reduce pollution. Have you any idea how much per mile the cost will go UP when a high percentage of vehicles don't get used anymore. HM Gov't will still need the same amount of money out a smaller number of people.

So this new idea favours people with money. The city dwelling 4WD/Offroad hurrah henrys - they will pay - and can afford to pay - whatever it costs.

Whats this rubbish about foreign drivers? So they will put boxes in their vehicles will they? And how will this be policed? Vehicles checked as they come in? If so, why not just check every vehicles fuel tank as they come in - and charge them tax on the fuel they bring in. No box needed then.

The reason for looking at alternative ways of taxing is so that we have a fairer way of taxing people based on their usage and that everyone, no matter which country they have come in from are paying that tax for the roads.

Petrol is not the fairest way of taxing because those that fill up outside of the U.K. circumvent that tax. Because tax is based as a percentage of the cost of petrol, when petrol costs rise, it puts some businesses on the brink of going bankrupt. In principal, taxing fuel that a lorry brings is sounds fantastic. Question: how do you plan to manage to do that efficiently? Have every vehicle stopped, their tank measured and then have an average petrol price assessed? So what if they are leaving the U.K.? Get a tax rebate? What if someone is planning a day trip to France? Rebate going out and taxed coming back in? Think it through!

Furthermore, petrol tax is not taxed sufficiently high such that people will look for alternatives to using the car or plan their lives with car usage in mind.

If the government had simply said, yep, we've already got an effective taxing mechanism in place, lets just increase it, I'm sure you'd be one that would be up in arms about it.

I just don't want this country to go forward as it is now just basically a tax on petrol until it goes through the roof and unfair tolls because they are cheaply implemented so that you pay for the whole leg of the journey when you just want to go down one stop because we haven't got simple black boxes in our cars etc.

It doesn't matter whether the government use the American, Australian, Singaporean system or whatever. So long as its one that improves on the current situation. Just put all the systems forward with their pros and cons and let the public decide on it.

Going forward as we do now, we'll see a lot more expensive unfair M6 toll roads and unfair charging of tax giving freebies to foreigners when they use the roads more than us. I'm not having non of that!

AMO