Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Realistbear

Nu Labour Transport Chief Sees Higher Taxes As The Way Forward

Recommended Posts

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/10052006/344/new-...ed-cameras.html

New minister backing speed cameras

Wednesday May 10, 08:55 AM

New Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has given his backing to speed cameras and road pricing.
He said speed cameras had "a role to play" and road pricing was one of a series of measures that had to be considered to ease congestion.

More government control on use of cars and more surveilance to raise money on speeding offences. How about "Black Boxes" in cars to tax time on the road and to monitor anti-government conversations?

Time for these Orwellian monsters to go or else our civil liberties will erode faster than Gordon Brown's timetable to move into No. 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the vault :

Black box in car to trap speed drivers

Juliette Jowit, transport editor

Sunday August 3, 2003

The Observer

Drivers face automatic speeding fines without being caught by the police or roadside cameras under a proposal being studied by the Government to fit all cars with satellite tracking devices for road tolls.

Under the anti-congestion tolling plan being examined by the Department for Transport, all vehicles would be fitted with a 'black box' to charge drivers according to the type of road they are using and when they are driving.

But transport experts believe the equipment will pave the way for 24-hour monitoring of drivers to see if they break the speed limit. It could also be used to determine whether drivers were speeding before an accident.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1011463,00.html

Why stop at ID cards, CCTV on every corner, mobile & email monitoring, and GPS black boxes in your car?

The next logical step is micorchip implants, think what that will do to illegal immigration, crime levels or subversion of the government. They'd do it if they could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an easy way to not get caught speeding

...

Don't speed, it isn't necessary and is illegal. Why shouldn't you get fined for breaking the law?

The way to stop speeding is to put the fine up to 5 grand, but then the government would lose money :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the vault :

Why stop at ID cards, CCTV on every corner, mobile & email monitoring, and GPS black boxes in your car?

The next logical step is micorchip implants, think what that will do to illegal immigration, crime levels or subversion of the government. They'd do it if they could.

Great link--they have actually thought about the black box! I was just joking, now I see how their minds really work. This is the most sinister government I have ever seen in this country. Our civil liberties are crucial and IF (IF) the Tories will stand for civil liberties they should be elected if for no other reason than to rid this country of these dangerous fanatics.

There is an easy way to not get caught speeding

...

Don't speed, it isn't necessary and is illegal. Why shouldn't you get fined for breaking the law?

The way to stop speeding is to put the fine up to 5 grand, but then the government would lose money :P

I got caught on camera doing 1 mph over and paid 60 quid plus got an endorsement. I might as well have been doing 15 mph over. The stress of driving and watching out for spy cameras causes more accidents!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any scheme involving high technology to measure road use seems to me to be a complete waste of resources, and dare I suggest, a make-work scheme for civil servants.

The point is to reduce the total usage of the roads, in particular the congested parts, and to presumably make the most environmentally damaging practices be reduced by financial cost involved. The simple way to make motoring involve a cost proportional to the environmental damage caused is to tax fuel. Large vehicles that use more fuel pay more. Vehicles that drive too fast on an open road use more fuel and pay more. Drivers that choose congested routes crawl with engines running and so pay more. If the main point of the new measurement is to reduce environmental damage, then tax fuel, because the damage caused is proportional directly to the fuel burnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't speed, it isn't necessary and is illegal.

I guess you'll be saying the same thing when motorway speed limits are set to 20mph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy the idea that congestion, unchecked just gets worse and worse until it's 24 hour gridlock - it's just not true.

i.e. I live in London but wouldn't drive to work because I know the roads will be too busy and the train is quicker.

I'd call that a self-regulating system that doesn't need additional hair-brained tax schemes. If congestion makes the train/bus quicker, I'll use those instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't buy the idea that congestion, unchecked just gets worse and worse until it's 24 hour gridlock - it's just not true.

Indeed not.

But the entire scam is backwards anyway. Congestion is a sign of success, not failure.

Why is it that in pretty much any other area of human life congestion means that something is so popular that it's being used to capacity and the capacity should be increased, whereas in roads congestion means that we must impose restrictions to stop people using them? When trains are congested in the rush hour, can you imagine the government saying they're imposing congestion charges to reduce train usage and cut the number of trains?

Of course not. But magically, congestion on trains is good, and a reason for increasing the number of trains and improving the railways, whereas congestion on the road is bad.

Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One good bit of motoring news:

The House of Lords very recently decided against the police in a case involving a motorist flashing other drivers that a speed trap was ahead. The judges said it was a good thing to warn others to stop speeding and that to do so was in no way obstructing police who had no right to assume anyone was breaking the law.

Thank God for an independent judiciary. They may start working a lot harder in the future to defend civil liberties much as the Supreme Court in the US does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an easy way to not get caught speeding

...

Don't speed, it isn't necessary and is illegal. Why shouldn't you get fined for breaking the law?

The way to stop speeding is to put the fine up to 5 grand, but then the government would lose money :P

Yes, but as everyone is expected to drive at 2 mph below the limit it doesnt give the driver much of a range between upper and lower does it. If such a system were to be implimented where the black box informs the government about speeding then it would be only right to have a speed regulating box which wouldnt allow anyone to speed ( I'd want one fitted if it were optional). That of course would just make overtaking dangerous, but to hell with risking paying fines every day. Also, the eyes should be on the road all the time and not on the speedometer. The whole idea is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you'll be saying the same thing when motorway speed limits are set to 20mph?

Ever drive on the m25? variable speed limits camera enforced. Totally random seeming 50mph signs when theres no traffic about, no issues for miles either direction.

As for congestion - thats not a sign of success, its a sign of *(&&wit traffic planners. "Lets stick a bus lane in here, have a one way system and a bus contraflow. Oh and some extra traffic lights on that roundabout. Then lets sync the lights so anyone caught by a red will get stopped by every red on the one way system... that should cut congestion."

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but as everyone is expected to drive at 2 mph below the limit it doesnt give the driver much of a range between upper and lower does it. If such a system were to be implimented where the black box informs the government about speeding then it would be only right to have a speed regulating box which wouldnt allow anyone to speed ( I'd want one fitted if it were optional). That of course would just make overtaking dangerous, but to hell with risking paying fines every day. Also, the eyes should be on the road all the time and not on the speedometer. The whole idea is ridiculous.

It is extremely stressfull and yes, you do spend too much time glancing down at the speedo as paranoia grips you! Most of the traps are out in the countryside on open roads--where you least expect them. Most decent drivers are not going to drive recklessly in towns.

I have seen some interesting number plates that have an odd looking surface. When a flash hits them the image appears to dissolve as the reflections distort the numbers and letters. I suppose it would make night driving a little less stressful <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that the EU and therefore all UK Governments officially regard private transport as "socially divisive".

To persuade people to use cars less and public transport more is the policy manifestation of that belief as much as environmental concerns.

Much as the "mixed" housing developments.

For longer leisure travel in the UK we have starting using the low cost airlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/10052006/344/new-...ed-cameras.html

New minister backing speed cameras

Wednesday May 10, 08:55 AM

New Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has given his backing to speed cameras and road pricing. .

Yes I noticed that. So far, today has been like a trip to the dentists : "So I'll book you in for a rate rise in September and then we'll look at raising your indirect, hypothecated taxes sometime after that. Is that okay?" :huh:

Edited by Sledgehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an easy way to not get caught speeding

...

Don't speed, it isn't necessary and is illegal. Why shouldn't you get fined for breaking the law?

The way to stop speeding is to put the fine up to 5 grand, but then the government would lose money :P

It isn't as simple as this.

Roads are safer when people are watching the roads, not their speedos.

I got caught by a camera doing 60mph in a 50mph zone. There was nothing dangerous about it, it was 10pm, dry, was a dual carriageway going out of Bournemouth and there was nobody on the road. I actually thought the speed limit was 70mph and thought I was going slower than this.

Now I have a Road Angel and won't get caught out again.

And because of the heavy reliance on speed cameras you hardly ever see police out on the road stopping people for more dangerous driving like tailgating etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an easy way to not get caught speeding

...

Don't speed, it isn't necessary and is illegal. Why shouldn't you get fined for breaking the law?

The way to stop speeding is to put the fine up to 5 grand, but then the government would lose money :P

Ok so you are saying that you religiously stick to the speed limit when you are driving?? i find that hard to believe, i think the point of the post was to highlight that if the system is implemented then we will be getting fined for every speeding transgression with no regard to the cause. I admit that i have gone above the speedlimit in the past. But does that make me a criminal if i was doing it to allow police, fire or an ambulance through?? Or what about if i was trying to avoid an accident or overtake someone who i thought was a danger to myself?

The Law is not as black and white as you see it, thats the reason why we have the justice system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy the idea that congestion, unchecked just gets worse and worse until it's 24 hour gridlock - it's just not true.

i.e. I live in London but wouldn't drive to work because I know the roads will be too busy and the train is quicker.

I'd call that a self-regulating system that doesn't need additional hair-brained tax schemes. If congestion makes the train/bus quicker, I'll use those instead.

Er... what do you call the congestion charge then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't as simple as this.

Roads are safer when people are watching the roads, not their speedos.

What evidence do you have to back this up?

Last December the Department for Transport published the results of the study it had commissioned into the efficacy of its speed cameras. It found that the number of drivers speeding down the roads where fixed cameras had been installed fell by 70%, and the number exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph dropped by 91%. As a result, 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured in those places than were killed or injured on the same stretches before the cameras were erected.

The number of deaths fell by more than 100 a year.

Speed camaras reduce deaths on the road. I'm surprised that such a normally informed board is being reduced to spasms of badly thought through nimbyism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

I'll just add:

Drivers with points more likely to be involved in accidents

Come on people, we all know the rules. We all make decisions whether we are going to obey the rules or try our luck.

I find the "it's more dangerous to watch the speedo than watch the road" argument particularly comical because that was the same argument used against the compulsory installation of speedometers in the first place.

If you can't manage to keep below the speed limit without constantly watching the speedo, I really wonder if are capable of driving safely in any circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the UK has 25% of all the worlds CCTV cameras.

There is no way I will accept a GPS tracking device in my car, this is something I will go out and protest about.

What would be the next step - tracking devices injected at birth and people taxed for using the pavements depending on what time of day they go out.

People have choice, I choose not to sit in my car on the M25 so I changed my job location.

And as for speed cameras - the obsession with speeding is horrendous. Far safer for drivers to be looking ahead than constantly looking at their speedos. Speeding is hardly ever a main factor in cause of accidents, some other kind of error is normally the cause.

Labour our idiots. But then everybody is waking upto this now...

Ok, call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but my view, which has formed as I have watched the creeping use of surveillance technology, is that there is now a deliberate plan to see to what extent these systems can lead to behaviour modification. They function 24/7 and are cheap as against people to do the same job. They also induce in people a sort of sulking acceptance that "they" are watching. Once one, seemingly innocuous, system has been accepted the next level up can be introduced.

It is controlling the majority, not the deviant minority that is the aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speeding is hardly ever a main factor in cause of accidents, some other kind of error is normally the cause.

Sorry no link, but I heard on Today a few weeks back that 60% of drivers involved in an accident have been ticketed for speeding. That would suggest otherwise.

The fast 'safe driver' is a myth, as regardless of how 'safe' you are, if you go too fast you are reducing the reaction time of other drivers thereby creating greater risk of an accident.

I don’t get it, lots of talk of peak oil and the most fuel efficient speed is 56mph, so if you aim to be at between 50& 60, you are using less fuel and reducing your risk of accidents. Oh and you wont be caught speeding!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry no link, but I heard on Today a few weeks back that 60% of drivers involved in an accident have been ticketed for speeding. That would suggest otherwise.

That could meant that 60% of all drivers have been ticketed. Probably about right.

But you say the weren't speeding at the time of the accident? That's more telling. Maybe they were so bored that they went to sleep and crashed. Yawn.

The fast 'safe driver' is a myth, as regardless of how 'safe' you are, if you go too fast you are reducing the reaction time of other drivers thereby creating greater risk of an accident.

They only people who speed excessively in my are are the Police. They go about 90mph in a busy high street. Try telling them "The fast 'safe driver' is a myth"!!!!! :huh:

PS I was almost run over by a police car when i was young.

Speed isn't aways dangerous. Idiots are, always. (except when watching TV)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.