Matt Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 looks like we're going to be ripped off yet again DRIVERS could pay up to £1.34 a mile in road charges as a replacement for fuel tax, the Government has admitted.Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said change was essential if Britain was to avoid 'LA-style gridlock'. Under the proposals, all cars and lorries would have to be fitted with a 'black box' which would track their journeys via a satellite system. A feasibility study carried out last year suggested that charges could range from 2p a mile on rural roads to £1.34 a mile for peak-time journeys on the busiest roads and motorways. Although the system could not be introduced for at least a decade, Mr Darling said decisions would have to be made in the current Parliament on whether to proceed with the scheme. He said he intended to present a Bill before the next General Election to establish a pilot project in a large urban area, such as Greater Manchester or the West Midlands, within the next five to six years. 'If we don't do anything it's pretty clear to me, when you look at all the trends, we would face complete gridlock,' he said. Mr Darling - who will set out his thinking in a speech on Thursday - acknowledged that he would need to build a consensus over the course of the next Parliament if the scheme were to win public acceptance. But he emphasised the new charges would replace fuel tax - dramatically cutting the price of petrol - and also, possibly, road tax. I pretty annoyed with these plans anyway but what annoys me even more is that they want to use the second cities now! I thought it was London that always had the pilot scheme, I thought it was London thats has to have the Olympic bid, the national stadium, the motor show..e.t.c? We why shouldn't London be used for the pilot scheme? Afterall its a "busy large urban area" and they do have some of the "buisest roads" in England in London, and some people might say London already has "LA-style gridlocks" so why not use London for the pilot scheme? They want everything so let them have this! It might be reducing petrol prices, and road taxes, but I reckon we'll still end up being ripped off as usual
davieG Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 looks like we're going to be ripped off yet again DRIVERS could pay up to £1.34 a mile in road charges as a replacement for fuel tax, the Government has admitted.Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said change was essential if Britain was to avoid 'LA-style gridlock'. Under the proposals, all cars and lorries would have to be fitted with a 'black box' which would track their journeys via a satellite system. A feasibility study carried out last year suggested that charges could range from 2p a mile on rural roads to £1.34 a mile for peak-time journeys on the busiest roads and motorways. Although the system could not be introduced for at least a decade, Mr Darling said decisions would have to be made in the current Parliament on whether to proceed with the scheme. He said he intended to present a Bill before the next General Election to establish a pilot project in a large urban area, such as Greater Manchester or the West Midlands, within the next five to six years. 'If we don't do anything it's pretty clear to me, when you look at all the trends, we would face complete gridlock,' he said. Mr Darling - who will set out his thinking in a speech on Thursday - acknowledged that he would need to build a consensus over the course of the next Parliament if the scheme were to win public acceptance. But he emphasised the new charges would replace fuel tax - dramatically cutting the price of petrol - and also, possibly, road tax. I pretty annoyed with these plans anyway but what annoys me even more is that they want to use the second cities now! I thought it was London that always had the pilot scheme, I thought it was London thats has to have the Olympic bid, the national stadium, the motor show..e.t.c? We why shouldn't London be used for the pilot scheme? Afterall its a "busy large urban area" and they do have some of the "buisest roads" in England in London, and some people might say London already has "LA-style gridlocks" so why not use London for the pilot scheme? They want everything so let them have this! It might be reducing petrol prices, and road taxes, but I reckon we'll still end up being ripped off as usual 119398[/snapback] I don't think it matters where they pilot it, I'm sure any pilot scheme will not involve 'charging anyone' it will just test the system, didn't Leicester try out a similar system. If it replaces road tax then it is a much fairer scheme, if it only replaces petrol tax then it is not so good from an environmental perspective as the gas guzzler would pay less. There would also be a tendency to push traffic onto minor roads and create rat runs. The overal cost, for individuals to set this up must be far in excess of what they want to charge for ID cards. Not forgetting that 'they' will know exactly where everyone has been or is going - do you have anything to hide?
TrickyTrev Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 It's a fairer system than Road Tax but £1.34 a mile is intolerable, although I question the validity of that figure. Our roads are approaching gridlock, something has to be done about it. Its not nice for people with cars but I say deal with it or use public transport. As for London getting it all their own way, have you never heard of the congestion zone charge?
Steven Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 Under the proposals, all cars and lorries would have to be fitted with a 'black box' which would track their journeys via a satellite system. Why not an on-board system, which would also not have to reveal where you were, or does someone really want to track you?
davieG Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 Under the proposals, all cars and lorries would have to be fitted with a 'black box' which would track their journeys via a satellite system. Why not an on-board system, which would also not have to reveal where you were, or does someone really want to track you? 119419[/snapback] How does that work Steven?
Steven Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 Under the proposals, all cars and lorries would have to be fitted with a 'black box' which would track their journeys via a satellite system. Why not an on-board system, which would also not have to reveal where you were, or does someone really want to track you? 119419[/snapback] How does that work Steven? 119420[/snapback] It is easy enough to have an on-board device such as a laser combined with a computer and some communication hardware and software which could be used to calculate the distance travelled for every journey by simply pointing the laser (could be more for greater accuracy) at the ground or by using some other kind of distance measuring device. The down side is that it is difficult to tell what sort of road I am on. If a different charge is levied on a road type basis then we need to know where we are. In the spirit of not being tracked, the only information the that needs to be exchanged between the vehicle and the "road" is some sort of charging code (that could apply to any number of roads) and this could be transmitted to the car by a roadside device. Then once a day/hour it sends the total number of miles/kilometres travelled on which road type via GPRS to a central computer and that information is stored. Variations could included differing timeslots for hire cars and fleet use. If the vehicle fails to report in the alloted time slot then some kind of error flag could be raised. Once a week, day, month or appropriate timeslot the total for that vehicle is added up and the bill presented to the appropriate person. In my version it is the same as tracking by satellite but there is no tracking of where you have been only the total number of miles/kilometeres travelled. That is all you need to charge for road usage.
Solihullfox Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 There is already technology in place on the M25 and now on the M42 where systems have been installed over the past year, hence the seemingly endless roadworks. The M42 system has been "hidden" on the back of the variable speed limit that is in operation on the M25 but I have been told by a civil engineer who DOES know, that they could track your average speed and invoke charges per mile on the M42 right now if they wanted to. The average speed fine system WILL be put into operation in the next couple of years but I wonder if the West Midlands will be the guinea pig for the rest of the country. For all of you who voted for this bunch of t*%$*rs, thanks very much.
davieG Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 Under the proposals, all cars and lorries would have to be fitted with a 'black box' which would track their journeys via a satellite system. Why not an on-board system, which would also not have to reveal where you were, or does someone really want to track you? 119419[/snapback] How does that work Steven? 119420[/snapback] It is easy enough to have an on-board device such as a laser combined with a computer and some communication hardware and software which could be used to calculate the distance travelled for every journey by simply pointing the laser (could be more for greater accuracy) at the ground or by using some other kind of distance measuring device. The down side is that it is difficult to tell what sort of road I am on. If a different charge is levied on a road type basis then we need to know where we are. In the spirit of not being tracked, the only information the that needs to be exchanged between the vehicle and the "road" is some sort of charging code (that could apply to any number of roads) and this could be transmitted to the car by a roadside device. Then once a day/hour it sends the total number of miles/kilometres travelled on which road type via GPRS to a central computer and that information is stored. Variations could included differing timeslots for hire cars and fleet use. If the vehicle fails to report in the alloted time slot then some kind of error flag could be raised. Once a week, day, month or appropriate timeslot the total for that vehicle is added up and the bill presented to the appropriate person. In my version it is the same as tracking by satellite but there is no tracking of where you have been only the total number of miles/kilometeres travelled. That is all you need to charge for road usage. 119422[/snapback] Cheers, sounds a bit complicated but I guess the other systems would if you tried to explain the detail. I suspect the 'knowing where you' are system will be adopted because of the obvious governmental type additional 'benefits'
Katy Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 Sort public transport out and you might be onto something. The government are always going on about using it but it sucks. Buses are dirty and expensive, trains are late and expensive! Where I live there is no public transport, its a good 5 mile walk to the nearest shop and you would have to cross the busy A1 as well so a car is a necessity for the likes of me.
Matt Posted 5 June 2005 Author Posted 5 June 2005 Under the proposals, all cars and lorries would have to be fitted with a 'black box' which would track their journeys via a satellite system. Why not an on-board system, which would also not have to reveal where you were, or does someone really want to track you? 119419[/snapback] How does that work Steven? 119420[/snapback] It is easy enough to have an on-board device such as a laser combined with a computer and some communication hardware and software which could be used to calculate the distance travelled for every journey by simply pointing the laser (could be more for greater accuracy) at the ground or by using some other kind of distance measuring device. The down side is that it is difficult to tell what sort of road I am on. If a different charge is levied on a road type basis then we need to know where we are. In the spirit of not being tracked, the only information the that needs to be exchanged between the vehicle and the "road" is some sort of charging code (that could apply to any number of roads) and this could be transmitted to the car by a roadside device. Then once a day/hour it sends the total number of miles/kilometres travelled on which road type via GPRS to a central computer and that information is stored. Variations could included differing timeslots for hire cars and fleet use. If the vehicle fails to report in the alloted time slot then some kind of error flag could be raised. Once a week, day, month or appropriate timeslot the total for that vehicle is added up and the bill presented to the appropriate person. In my version it is the same as tracking by satellite but there is no tracking of where you have been only the total number of miles/kilometeres travelled. That is all you need to charge for road usage. 119422[/snapback] Cheers, sounds a bit complicated but I guess the other systems would if you tried to explain the detail. I suspect the 'knowing where you' are system will be adopted because of the obvious governmental type additional 'benefits' 119424[/snapback] I'm not really that technological and its probably a similar idea to Steven's but in Australia, on there equivilant of out Toll Roads everyone who uses that road has to purchase a thing called a "E-tag" (I think that's what its called) I don't know for sure but imagine this is some kind of laser, if you don't have one of these "E-tags" and you use the road you recieve a fine, Instead of one of these boxes which they have plans for they could prehaps use this idea, as I said i'm not really very technological I know the basic of how to use a PC and thats about it so please forgive me if my idea is stupid -But I don't really know why i'm coming up with idea for the charge's because i'm very much against the charge's
Cat Burger Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 Fook that, I would have to quit driving if that came in.
Newcastle_Fox Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 would be good if you got a chipped box though where you could turn the counter off. No Tax, Maybe cheaper petrol! Bonus
stez Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 if they do it properly ie scrap fuel tax as it is now and road tax and put all of the road tax and a mileage tax on fuel that'll be fine. as things stand i resent having to tax my car for a year when it can often sit in my drive for days not being used.
Alexikokopops Posted 5 June 2005 Posted 5 June 2005 Fook that, I would have to quit driving if that came in. 119547[/snapback] I wouldn't mind so much, Lincolnshire is farm county, I'd be paying the 2p per mile I pay one hell of a lot more on petrol tax.
Collymore Posted 6 June 2005 Posted 6 June 2005 Under the proposals, all cars and lorries would have to be fitted with a 'black box' which would track their journeys via a satellite system. Why not an on-board system, which would also not have to reveal where you were, or does someone really want to track you? 119419[/snapback] How does that work Steven? 119420[/snapback] It is easy enough to have an on-board device such as a laser combined with a computer and some communication hardware and software which could be used to calculate the distance travelled for every journey by simply pointing the laser (could be more for greater accuracy) at the ground or by using some other kind of distance measuring device. The down side is that it is difficult to tell what sort of road I am on. If a different charge is levied on a road type basis then we need to know where we are. In the spirit of not being tracked, the only information the that needs to be exchanged between the vehicle and the "road" is some sort of charging code (that could apply to any number of roads) and this could be transmitted to the car by a roadside device. Then once a day/hour it sends the total number of miles/kilometres travelled on which road type via GPRS to a central computer and that information is stored. Variations could included differing timeslots for hire cars and fleet use. If the vehicle fails to report in the alloted time slot then some kind of error flag could be raised. Once a week, day, month or appropriate timeslot the total for that vehicle is added up and the bill presented to the appropriate person. In my version it is the same as tracking by satellite but there is no tracking of where you have been only the total number of miles/kilometeres travelled. That is all you need to charge for road usage. 119422[/snapback] Cheers, sounds a bit complicated but I guess the other systems would if you tried to explain the detail. I suspect the 'knowing where you' are system will be adopted because of the obvious governmental type additional 'benefits' 119424[/snapback] You mean the type of benefits where a missile could be deployed in seconds to dispose of you quickly and efficiently
C-man Posted 7 June 2005 Posted 7 June 2005 I'm glad i dont drive yet But then again, it will probably be more in a few years
Guest Posted 7 June 2005 Posted 7 June 2005 The only real issue I have is that the Government don't want me to use the city centre routes, as these get very congested, so I use the A46/M1 to travel from one side of the city to the other. Under this new proposal, I would be penalised, as I'm sure that the M1, especially around junction 21/21A will be heavily tolled, as will the city centre, so how the feck do I get to and from work?
Steven Posted 7 June 2005 Posted 7 June 2005 The only real issue I have is that the Government don't want me to use the city centre routes, as these get very congested, so I use the A46/M1 to travel from one side of the city to the other. Under this new proposal, I would be penalised, as I'm sure that the M1, especially around junction 21/21A will be heavily tolled, as will the city centre, so how the feck do I get to and from work? 120119[/snapback] Public transport.
Guest Posted 7 June 2005 Posted 7 June 2005 The only real issue I have is that the Government don't want me to use the city centre routes, as these get very congested, so I use the A46/M1 to travel from one side of the city to the other. Under this new proposal, I would be penalised, as I'm sure that the M1, especially around junction 21/21A will be heavily tolled, as will the city centre, so how the feck do I get to and from work? 120119[/snapback] Public transport. 120125[/snapback] 1 hour 30 minutes or 20 minutes?
stez Posted 7 June 2005 Posted 7 June 2005 The only real issue I have is that the Government don't want me to use the city centre routes, as these get very congested, so I use the A46/M1 to travel from one side of the city to the other. Under this new proposal, I would be penalised, as I'm sure that the M1, especially around junction 21/21A will be heavily tolled, as will the city centre, so how the feck do I get to and from work? 120119[/snapback] Public transport. 120125[/snapback] 1 hour 30 minutes or 20 minutes? 120181[/snapback] i know which i'd choose..... incidentally, on public transport it would take me hours to get to grantham as it's a 7 mile walk to the nearest bus stop
Frenzied Posted 7 June 2005 Posted 7 June 2005 looks like we're going to be ripped off yet again DRIVERS could pay up to £1.34 a mile in road charges as a replacement for fuel tax, the Government has admitted.Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said change was essential if Britain was to avoid 'LA-style gridlock'. Under the proposals, all cars and lorries would have to be fitted with a 'black box' which would track their journeys via a satellite system. A feasibility study carried out last year suggested that charges could range from 2p a mile on rural roads to £1.34 a mile for peak-time journeys on the busiest roads and motorways. Although the system could not be introduced for at least a decade, Mr Darling said decisions would have to be made in the current Parliament on whether to proceed with the scheme. He said he intended to present a Bill before the next General Election to establish a pilot project in a large urban area, such as Greater Manchester or the West Midlands, within the next five to six years. 'If we don't do anything it's pretty clear to me, when you look at all the trends, we would face complete gridlock,' he said. Mr Darling - who will set out his thinking in a speech on Thursday - acknowledged that he would need to build a consensus over the course of the next Parliament if the scheme were to win public acceptance. But he emphasised the new charges would replace fuel tax - dramatically cutting the price of petrol - and also, possibly, road tax. I pretty annoyed with these plans anyway but what annoys me even more is that they want to use the second cities now! I thought it was London that always had the pilot scheme, I thought it was London thats has to have the Olympic bid, the national stadium, the motor show..e.t.c? We why shouldn't London be used for the pilot scheme? Afterall its a "busy large urban area" and they do have some of the "buisest roads" in England in London, and some people might say London already has "LA-style gridlocks" so why not use London for the pilot scheme? They want everything so let them have this! It might be reducing petrol prices, and road taxes, but I reckon we'll still end up being ripped off as usual 119398[/snapback] Sounds like a great idea if it can get people out of their cars but I agree it should definately be introduced in London first and the conjestion charge needs to be hiked also. And yes, London does have almost complete gridlock at times. There was a traffic jam this morning from where I live right up to my work place (about six miles). The roads are really dirty and polluted too. I really fail to understand the mentality of the many people in London that drive to work - it's expensive and takes longer than other forms of transport. What's interesting is the differences in public transport between a place like Leicester and London. Ever since Ken Livingstone became Mayor here the bus service has been pretty good - I never have to wait more than ten minutes. However, when I return to Leicester it's a completely different story - the buses are crap - it's often quicker walking. And Leicester is not even close to being a conjested as London. Think you need to get onto the coucil up there. Still, unless it's more than about ten miles to work or you're physically incapable of doing so, people should cycle to work. It's cheap, good exercise, good for the environment and gives you a chance to be outside for a while during the day.
TrickyTrev Posted 7 June 2005 Posted 7 June 2005 looks like we're going to be ripped off yet again DRIVERS could pay up to £1.34 a mile in road charges as a replacement for fuel tax, the Government has admitted.Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said change was essential if Britain was to avoid 'LA-style gridlock'. Under the proposals, all cars and lorries would have to be fitted with a 'black box' which would track their journeys via a satellite system. A feasibility study carried out last year suggested that charges could range from 2p a mile on rural roads to £1.34 a mile for peak-time journeys on the busiest roads and motorways. Although the system could not be introduced for at least a decade, Mr Darling said decisions would have to be made in the current Parliament on whether to proceed with the scheme. He said he intended to present a Bill before the next General Election to establish a pilot project in a large urban area, such as Greater Manchester or the West Midlands, within the next five to six years. 'If we don't do anything it's pretty clear to me, when you look at all the trends, we would face complete gridlock,' he said. Mr Darling - who will set out his thinking in a speech on Thursday - acknowledged that he would need to build a consensus over the course of the next Parliament if the scheme were to win public acceptance. But he emphasised the new charges would replace fuel tax - dramatically cutting the price of petrol - and also, possibly, road tax. I pretty annoyed with these plans anyway but what annoys me even more is that they want to use the second cities now! I thought it was London that always had the pilot scheme, I thought it was London thats has to have the Olympic bid, the national stadium, the motor show..e.t.c? We why shouldn't London be used for the pilot scheme? Afterall its a "busy large urban area" and they do have some of the "buisest roads" in England in London, and some people might say London already has "LA-style gridlocks" so why not use London for the pilot scheme? They want everything so let them have this! It might be reducing petrol prices, and road taxes, but I reckon we'll still end up being ripped off as usual 119398[/snapback] Sounds like a great idea if it can get people out of their cars but I agree it should definately be introduced in London first and the conjestion charge needs to be hiked also. And yes, London does have almost complete gridlock at times. There was a traffic jam this morning from where I live right up to my work place (about six miles). The roads are really dirty and polluted too. I really fail to understand the mentality of the many people in London that drive to work - it's expensive and takes longer than other forms of transport. What's interesting is the differences in public transport between a place like Leicester and London. Ever since Ken Livingstone became Mayor here the bus service has been pretty good - I never have to wait more than ten minutes. However, when I return to Leicester it's a completely different story - the buses are crap - it's often quicker walking. And Leicester is not even close to being a conjested as London. Think you need to get onto the coucil up there. Still, unless it's more than about ten miles to work or you're physically incapable of doing so, people should cycle to work. It's cheap, good exercise, good for the environment and gives you a chance to be outside for a while during the day. 120194[/snapback] I think us Londoners do have a warped view on public transport. Tubes coming every 4 mintues and enough buses to bring the roads to grid lock without the cars make personal vehicles a disposable/luxury good.
Knighton Matt Posted 7 June 2005 Posted 7 June 2005 my major concern over these proposals is if they can track where you are at a given time whats to stop them calculating your average speed given the distance of the journey you have made and the time it took you! more speeding fines means the scheme probably pays for itself! NO THANK YOU!
Alexikokopops Posted 7 June 2005 Posted 7 June 2005 The only real issue I have is that the Government don't want me to use the city centre routes, as these get very congested, so I use the A46/M1 to travel from one side of the city to the other. Under this new proposal, I would be penalised, as I'm sure that the M1, especially around junction 21/21A will be heavily tolled, as will the city centre, so how the feck do I get to and from work? 120119[/snapback] Public transport. 120125[/snapback] 1 hour 30 minutes or 20 minutes? 120181[/snapback] i know which i'd choose..... incidently, on public transport it would take me hours to get to grantham as it's a 7 mile walk to the nearest bus stop 120187[/snapback] Public transport in Lincolnshire is pretty damn shocking.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.