We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy.

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

OK folks, I'll do some maths here

 

385,000 signatures or votes against thus far - according to a previous post. Secondly 79,000 and change prison places available in the UK, with over 80,000 inmates currently in prison (i.e. technically we have overrun our jail system and people are being held for crimes in remand prisons, police cells etc).

 

In France apparently, they tried to introduce wheel clamping some years ago - and the french basically said f'off - and went round vandalising the clamps themselves when they were put on cars, even if the car wasn't theirs (superglue in locks etc). After a couple of months, clamping was pretty much abandoned because the system costed more to police and prosecute than what it was dragging in.

 

So, given the fact we absolutely know they are not going to jail you for ripping said box out of vehicle. Given the fact that I've read about courts taking over 6 months now to listen to a drink drive hearing for a not-guilty plea, given the fact that the amount of people truly against this when or if this comes into force is likely to be at least 10 times the 385k figure above - then frankly you have nothing to worry about - unless we all walk around with the blinkered sheep mentality that our nation seems to do half the time.

 

Laws are made for us by people WE elect. Simply put 600 guys in the HOP cannot enforce most laws to even a tiny minority let alone the majority of the electorate, so you have two options - either go against it or roll over and let the Labour party shaft you again for want of a better expression.

 

WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT

 

It's not an option - it does no more to protect either the roads or the environment (well maybe roads if it's a train, but then the cost of maintenance on that is also ridiculous). Frankly I'm about bloody sick of people telling ME that public transport is the way forward. Yes, I have used (and would us) public transport in a city quite possibly (in fact, going into London now is nearly always a trip to peterborough and the train in - because frankly it works out cheaper and quicker). To give you a better example of how public transport works outside of cities (where frankly fares are much lower) the bus from Louth (lincolnshire) to the next major shopping area (Grimsby) runs a grand total of about 14 miles. This bus now charges about £5 for a return fare I think - and frankly I can do that trip for less in my Micra or even my VFR750 (which drinks fuel quicker than I can drink lager). In a car it is a fifteen minute trip on quick roads - on the bus about 45 minutes. In a car a direct trip - on a bus you have to go round a couple of villages. In the car I have a radio and personal privacy - on a bus I have to deal with snappy comments from jumped up college students because I might be wearing a suit or something else considered less cool for day to day attire.

 

Simply put public transport is NOT AN OPTION FOR A MODERN SOCIETY. Therefore the department of transport, who frankly have done nothing for this country (railway system is knackered, how many decent roads have been built in the last ten years?), ought to fess up and just say alternative powered vehicles are the future AND YES legislate if necessary, that car manufacturers must bring in quotas of alternative fuel cars on a sliding scale over the next 20 years (if such legislation doesn't exist already).

 

In terms of the environment. We've had this debate before, but there is little to suggest taking cars off the road will improve the environment to any noticeable degree at all, because cars contribute something poxy like about 0.2% of all carbon emissions worldwide. I saw a great thing the other day that implied a regular moo cow contributes more greenhouse gasses a day than the average car (great statistic - lets kill em all). EVEN TREES which most people think are carbon friendly, in most cases are NET CONTRIBUTORS to carbon (http://www.manythings.org/voa/01/010615er_t.htm), and don't actually improve the situation - as I understand it algae is responsible for most carbon conversion (more ponds, yipeee!). All these numpties on TV bang on about global warming (anyone who has watched sky news this week will know what I am talking about), but few mention cyclical weather patterns (back to El Nino and events much larger which we still oblivious too). Warmer seas, milder winters - big deal - we've had several ice ages at the other end of the scale, long before man started buring wood, coal and oil. As I've said, the earth might be teatering towards some catacalysmic set of events in a hundred or even a thousand years time, but it is only our arrogance that makes us think we'd be able to stop it.

 

It is not human nature to assume sh1t happens, it needs a label, cause or reason. No one, and this is a fact, can prove anything about weather patterns, sea temperatures or global warming as far as I know, since the concepts have only been broadly mooted since the late 70's and truthfully how much data have they had access to 'in the grand scale of things' since then??

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

LOL, I've just had a read through the thread and this rick fellah just HAS to be a government plant or on some kind of wind up!!!

 

Worrying about the future of our kids and grandkids? Don't make me laugh!!!! Try spinning a globe and then seeing how quickly you can find our tiny insignificant island upon it when it stops revolving.

 

Far bigger issues............destruction of the worlds rainforests for example, the uncontrolled expansion of filthy industry in developing countries such as india and china, the reluctance of super powers such as the US to sign the kyoto treaty etc etc etc. Theres also the much bigger transport issue of how much polution air travel creates.

 

The amount of Co2 saved per pound taxed by the UK government would be miniscule. We'd be better off having a nationwide whip round and building china or india a few clean power stations.

 

I won't even venture into the area of how biased and unfair such a system MIGHT be on some people who due to their location have little choice but to rack up highish mileages each year (and I'm not talking about your greedy 100k a year commuter belt worker either).

 

The motorist is taxed to death.......we pay road tax, tax on our insurance, VAT on the car, and all the parts and servicing we do on it through its life, we pay tax on fuel, we pay to park on the very roads we've already paid to drive on, and if we make even the most minor of transgressions to any of the road laws we get 'taxed' further still. I'd be interested to know what the REAL tax burden is on owning an average family car over say a 10 year period given an average 12k miles a year driven...........anyone know or care to take a stab at working it out?

[deanbmw]

millon users cant be wrong

[billy50000]

Hi all

 

it wouldnt be so bad being screw`d for road tax, if some of the money they take, was actually spent making the road surface better and taking those nasty potholes away.

 

i was on the bus today as ive had the car off the road,saving money and all that

i was amazed at how many potholes could actually bump you off the seat.

trouble with buses is they are so wide they cannot avoid them, when most of are standard cars can.(just)

 

i bet the bill for renewing suspension is high on these buses, and i can bet they still pay through the nose on tax discs(considering they are apparently a greener way to travel like car sharing type things)

 

still doesnt actually help reduce emissions it just cuts traffic cues by 1-2 cars in the morning.

 

clarkson was in the US driving about and made a remark on the differance between the road surface of us-uk roads and he was dead right(they are appaling in the uk)and we still have to pay tax for it.

 

in and around my town they have started to put mini roundabouts to relieve traffic (like where chesters lives)and its a death trap and in nowway a help but a damn stupid waste of money.

 

it just seems they care about more and more speed reduction measures and not the actual condition.

 

then i have to pay to have the cv joint/bushes/arms etc etc replaced at my own expense when the taxdisc is suposidly ment for road upkeep?

 

one day when the air gets bad enough they will enjoy taxing us for the upkeep of the machines to clean it.

 

i was explaining to my eldest about taxes on food/sanitary products/bacci/sweets/toys etc etc and she was gobsmacked and spent the day trying to find something we arnt taxed on:)good luck to her:)

 

 

steve

Edited February 12, 2007 by billy50000

[Dan]

OK folks, I'll do some maths here

 

Therefore the department of transport, who frankly have done nothing for this country (railway system is knackered, how many decent roads have been built in the last ten years?), ought to fess up and just say alternative powered vehicles are the future AND YES legislate if necessary, that car manufacturers must bring in quotas of alternative fuel cars on a sliding scale over the next 20 years (if such legislation doesn't exist already).

 

Its no good ............ I cant resist joining in, and yep I work for DfT! So no new roads eh? where shall I start, without referring to our info, how about £1bn a year on new roads cos thats how much is spent, and no they are not cheap! A30 Bodmin Indian queens, M6 toll, M6 Carlisle to Guardsmill, Weeford to Faseley,M42 ATM, M5 and M4 widening to name but a few, I could go on but admittedly these are Trunk roads not the local highways that we drive on the most. The trouble is even if you double rail capacity you only take out one years worth of traffic growth. given that we cant just keep building and building new roads, nor afford it something has got to be done. The trouble is we all think that we are not part of the problem nor part of the solution but we are. Pricing roads higher at peak times has to be a good idea to spread the load, better than closing a slip road because the motorway is full, which is also under research. Forget the global warming issue for a moment and put aside the example setting issue, if we dont do something soon none of us will be driving anywhere at any speed!! .......... or maybe thats the answer let congestion be the catalyst.

[billy50000]

Hi all

 

lets all get sinclair c5`s and sort this mess out:)

 

maybe instead of mopeds like other countries we should design a better solution like the c5 but abit better:):)

 

think, its slower/safer/colder:)

 

narh i will stick to my pug 306 diesal:)

 

tolls for using motorways is fine, but im not a motorway lover and rarely use them and id be happy to pay a toll when i needed to use them, but im an A road fan and hopefully it wont cost a stupid amount to potter into the next town:(

 

im not what you would call a major polluter as today was the first time ive been out in 2 weeks +and i took the bus:)

 

roll on when we can invent personnal transporters:):)beam me up

Edited February 12, 2007 by billy50000

[Dan]

I found the solution! http://www.futurehorizons.net/jetpacks.htm

 

dan

[gozzer]

Well you should have all got your e-mails from No10 by now.

I've just read mine, edging bets, flannel, get us through another term in office, were all brought to mind when reading it.

Some of what is said is undeniably true, but without a complete change in the workings of our society, then (despite his claims that this is not a 'stealth tax') these proposals are nothing but a money making scheme for the government/ local authorities. It will increase costs both to the motorist and business, which will increase prices, and therefore inflation. As well as widening the divide between the 'have' and 'have nots'.

I had to laugh when he brought the environment into it, the only 'green' thing about this, will be the people who believe that it will work.

 

John.

[chesters1]

going on the london congestion charge it will be a failure ,yes it worked in the first year but now only is an 8% reduction on traffic! ,his (livingstones) answer is to widen the area so those in outlying areas pay the charge whether they use the car or not.

now he (the office of the pm) has your email addy he can send propaganda pretending to agree with you just before the next election and a great many suckers will believe him and vote labour ! ofcourse as seen in every other election those promisses are quickly forgotten once the crooks get in.(seeing as they (political parties) are a public "company" as such why are they never brought up on fraud charges)?

if road charging is only for city centers then it will bring a slight reduction in traffic ,but this is far less than the effect school holidays have on traffic so child charging could be a better policy!

 

the chaos we see on the road is due directly to labours pandering to the rich ,they allowed choice in schools so those that can afford to move into a schools catchment area do so and the same choice allows them to take their brats in the school run to schools miles away from their home ignoring closer schools that arnt fashionable ,you see the difference every holiday day those congested roads and tailbacks are non existant! .

now travelling to a distant hospital makes congestion around it ,had the smaller hospitals remained open only the more serious patients would need to go further for specialist care ,add to that disapearing post offices ,bus services no longer available and labours meddling is revealed ,their answer TO CHARGE YOU MORE to use your car to go somewhere where you didnt need to before labour got involved!

Edited February 21, 2007 by chesters1

[gozzer]

I was watching the Minister for Transport debating(?) on TV the other day. He was saying that there are three ways that they can tell where you drive. Your car didn't have to be chipped. he went on to say that, as technology advances, they would use other means to determining how much you owe. I got the feeling that the 'technology' he was referring to hadn't been invented yet! I got the same feeling from the e-mail today. I wonder if the source of this 'technology' is the same one that provided 'proof' of WMD.

 

John.