Safe Speed Forums

Dr Ladyman's 'web chat' today:

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page11046.asp

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Oh yeah?

_________________
Andrew.

I would rather like to ask him why......the "Road Fund Licence" is NOW referred to as a "Vehicle Licence" on official forms and on ALL the Gov. Ads. refer to it as: "Car Tax" or "Bike Tax".......(you know the one, "we'll crush it if you don't pay") are they feeling guilty about NOT spending the revenue from it on roads do you think?.....

This is an interesting point for debate. The thrust of Labour's defence on this one is that some people will HAVE to be priced off the roads in order to avoid congestion gridlock - there is no other way.

What SL is saying in his reply to Mr Brooks is that this has to involve wasting money on a huge IT system and impinging on peoples' privacy rights because the much simpler (and ultimately cheaper to the taxpayer) alternative is too politically "hot".

Having said that, I believe that, due to the self-regulating nature of traffic congestion, Labour's predictions of future gridlock are too pessimistic to start off with.



Does anyone actually buy this? I'm sorry, but the opportunity to use the data for law enforcement is just too compelling. The Government shouldn't be allowed to expose themselves to this kind of temptation. Nor should we citizens - if your 6 year old daughter was killed by a paedophile, and data from the road pricing system could be used to catch him, would you lobby your MP for the rules on non-retention of the data to be reversed? of course you would. And once those floodgates are open.....


Repeated several times:


Ladyman is making it quite clear that the strategy is to force people off of motorways & other primary routes and onto rural roads.

And people living in rural areas are supposed to be happy about this?!?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

To me, it just doesn't add up. They say they will end Road Fund Licence AND reduce tax on fuel..........if their proposals work, they hope to get a 40% reduction in fuel use......and possibly many people no-doubt to abandon car ownership with a subsequent loss of VAT!


Call me sceptical but, I've NEVER known any Chancellor take such a tax reduction in my life!..........


Nah!.....

I am starting to get so angry about all this congestion and tax crap. The govenment won't listen to us, they will do what they want. Its as if we don't even exsist! 99% of the questions asked on that web chat where disproving the idea of "pay as you go", backed up by a petition with, what was it, 150000 signatures on it. So that tells me that it isn't wanted. Yet they are still talking about going ahead with it. All this talk of "we are still debating". Shut up! I think this debate has ended.
WE DO NOT WANT THIS!

_________________
go for it

Is there a way to engineer two matching cross referencing pettitions to prpopse these two ideas ang gauge the feeling of the people.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I think quadrupling the price of fuel is not a good idea. For instance, I go down to santa pod a few times a year. We usually travel during the day on the friday. Now normally this would cost me somewhere in the region of £50 return in my car, however, this would now cost me £200. The couple of runs up the strip would cost me 4 times as much, and it costs me apporx £4 to fill the generator up, that would now cost me £16 for about 3-4 hours of lighting and music. These latter two uses of petrol are personal, so why should they be so high in price? As far as im aware, they don't have a congestion problem on Santa Pod drag strip, and I've never seen any generators causing congestion.

_________________
go for it

He's admitted that ---"I don't have the figure you are asking for to hand at the moment but I can tell you that the taxes motorists pay have not been ring fenced for transport since 1937. They are part of the exchequer's general revenue and they pay for schools, hospitals, police etc and if we didn't have that revenue then other taxes like income tax and VAT would have to go up"


So from that statement , does it look likely that VED etc are going to get dumped ???

Tried a google about road pricing debate -got this

Saying (how strange )

But ippr’s research also shows that the public support the underlying principle of road pricing with 62 per cent agreeing that it is fair that you should pay more the more you drive.

(And at the start )--"ippr’s report, published ahead of the Eddington Transport Study set up by the Chancellor Gordon Brown and due to report next month, is based on an online poll of 1150 people, six focus groups and three day long deliberative workshops. The research shows that while more than 90 per cent of people see congestion as a serious problem less than 40 per cent said they supported road pricing as a solution."
There is widespread acceptance that Britain’s congested roads are an increasing problem and a radical solution is needed

Did they find that a high percentage of turkeys voted for Christmas ??

So is it 40% or 62% - first problem to be solved
(Another radical solution might be to SPEND some more of the motorists tax on roads ,but that could be too radical)

It seems obvious that this morally corrupt administration deem it acceptable to engineer a problem (per the DfT report to LAs re. provoking congestion) in order to raise revenue from implementing a solution. Positive side effects for them include bringing foreign investment into the UK (IT operators) creating jobs and ingratiating themselves to European government!

What is staggering is, having been caught at it, they persist in trying to deny it is for anything other than the good of us all!

I'm surprised noone has yet challenged Dr Ladyman to reconcile the DfT report with road pricing plans!

Having seen the business oppertunity, they create the need with misleading advertising and having been caught bang to rights say it's for our own good (oh and that of the children),mustn't forget them

This looks like an extremely dodgy base assertion. I guess we need to chase it back to source.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Does anyone know the governments' definition of "congestion"?

I know it means overcrowding, but is it somewhere between busy and standstill?
Is it defined by speed & density of traffic?
And what can a 40% improvement in congestion mean? Is that when 40% of the congestion goes away - but wouldn't it just be busy then, and NOT congested at all?

Help, I'm confussed - it all sounds a bit subjective to me. (or is it all just spin?!)

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Does congestion mean average speeds of <nn miles per hour?

If speed kills then congestion must be a major contribution to road safety.

You'd think the Government would welcome congestion after all, doing away with it would mean more deaths.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Tried a google on congestion - heads the only thing thats spinning.

But strangely enough found this



read it here
Road pricing will not end congestion, warn MPs
A national road pricing scheme will not solve Britain's congestion problems and the Department for Transport is incapable of pushing through the policy, a committee of MPs said yesterday
The Commons transport committee said its scathing report on the DfT's performance last year was a "terrible picture of failure". It gave mild support to a road pricing scheme, but warned that the DfT lacked the leadership and coherent thinking needed to implement such a policy.


So why is blair pushing ahead with it, or trying to persuade us it's so fantastic.

Think you can push out another cartoon Paul--replace the camera with road pricing( it's still snake oil):

Speaking with my brother late last weekend, and he came up with an interesting idea.
Fit all cars with a money meter. A meter that shows you how much a journey costs you in £ and p.
So a quick trip down to the shops will cost you just in fuel alone to get a loaf of bread, when you could just as easily have walked.
How much does that school run actually cost?

I think people would be very surprised, and price themselves off the roads for short journeys.
Like the muppet who crawled onto the motorway this week, drove at about 40mph and went off at the next junction. Didn't think to look at the traffic already on the motorway and the immediate tailback that he caused in already fairly heavy traffic.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Something that might appeal to blokes like you - fit motorways with "money meters"to see how much a limited truck costs the country.

Hey well, speed kills you know!.....

Yes. There was a petition running at the same time asking TB to keep the proposed tracking system.

I think it got about 3000 signatures.