Re: Road pricing - have your say

There's already one there - I just signed it.

For good measure I've added one advocating that citizens be able to buy approved speed guns and enforce at whim, splitting the fines 50/50 with the authorities. Feel free to join...

FoFP

Government is about doing what's necessary, not what's wanted. Elections are where the public gets a say, as they generally don't get paid to spend their working lives studying the options.

Andrew McP

That'll come as news to New Labour, Conservatives and Liberals.

Toom

I'm not against the government raising the costs of driving if there is good reason to do so.

I *DO* strongly dislike the idea of having cameras everywhere, and the government telling us it's for user pays road charging. What's wrong with raising the (already high) tax on fuel if they want user pays road tax?

James

That's easy to answer. The idea is to skew the costs so that you pay more if you frequent heavily congested areas at busy time. Increasing fuel tax makes *all* driving more expensive, which is OK but not enough if you want to discourage (say) commuting more than off-peak driving (such as to the supermarket) or less frequent driving (such as visiting the countryside in your leisure time).

Oh.

That makes a lot more sense now! I'm still not so keen on the cameras and can think of other ways of achieving the same goal, but the scheme does suddenly seem much more useful.

Cheers!

James

Which makes the whole concept of a petition site a bit of a farce, doesn't it?

At 07:16:00 on 14/02/2007, Andrew MacPherson delighted uk.finance by announcing:

What's necessary about banning hunting?

At 13:29:16 on 14/02/2007, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

That's the public face of the idea, perhaps. As soon as driving habits change, charges will go up to compensate for the diminishing revenue. Just look at the Congestion Charge.

Why would you want to discourage the economically necessary driving (commuting) yet allow the driving that does little other than contribute to climate change?

Commuting may be "economically necessary" (though in fact it's best to reduce the need for it by making sure you live close to your work), but it isn't "necessary" to commute by driving.

Most of the contribution driving makes to climate change comes from most of the driving that is being done. Commuting is it. Driving in support of leisure pursuits makes only a minor contribution. Hence by eliminating commuter driving, leaving only leisure driving, the overall CC contribution from driving would be vastly reduced.

I was under the impression there is no road fuel excise duty on such home-made chip-shop diesel.

Wrong impression

At 15:56:57 on 14/02/2007, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

It most certainly is for me unless I want to quadruple the time and money it costs me*. It is also necessary for people such as GPs to have private cars.

*Until the office moves when I shall be able to cycle.

And the overall CC would be hardly touched.

There you go. You confirm it isn't necessary, merely convenient.

Why? They could have work-only cars without needing private cars. They can commute like everyone else.

We had GPs before cars had been invented, so obviously it's not

*necessary* for them to have cars.

Horses? They can cut through traffic jams much more effectively.

Good lad.

Where can I find a nice concise[*] source of information about the top X of the country's CO2 emission sources, where road transport is the Xth? And preferably also a breakdown of the road transport emissions by category (haulage, buses, commercial travelling, commuting, other private).

[*] I don't want to spend a lot of effort searching for this, so if you have something to hand, I'd be grateful for any pointers.

At 17:04:13 on 14/02/2007, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Define necessary and convenient. I cannot afford to quadruple that time and money.

Private in the sense that only they have access. And the reason is that they have to have secure boxes in those cars for certain drugs.

Not to see patients, they cannot.

We used to hunt our own food. What has history got to do with it?

You can't lock a horse.

Watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and be enlightened (although it's obviously of more specific relevance to the US).

So? Why would you *want* to 'lock a horse'?

works usually for me.

That's what they all say.

It can be a surgery car shared by all the doctors there.

Going to see patients isn't commuting. Commuting is when they travel from home to the surgery.

We can still hunt food, though it's a little unorthodox now.

But you can carry your drugs in a locked saddle bag.

At 18:27:26 on 14/02/2007, snipped-for-privacy@isbd.co.uk delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Otherwise people can nick it, along with the dangerous drugs stored in its saddle-pack.

At 18:27:42 on 14/02/2007, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

It is logically unavoidable.

Perhaps they're all right.

It can indeed. I didn't state it couldn't, only that it had to be private. i.e. not a taxi, for instance.

I didn't say it was.

And we can all suffer without certain drugs, though it's a little unorthodox now (depending on your postcode).

How do you secure the saddle bag to the horse? With bolts?