Advocacy & Safety - A step in the right direction?

A step in the right direction or would it just increase use of minor roads?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1838000/1838185.stm

Richard

IMO It will force everyone onto minor roads and make things much more dangerous for cyclists.

The only way to encourage people to give up their cars is to make public transport cheaper and more accessible and to encourage use of two wheel transport (scooter and bicycle).

When car sales are at a peak (2.37 million last year in UK) it makes it difficult to argue against such a large lobby group.

Im not sure its the way to go. There are too many rat runs to escape paying road usage tax. Maybe a tax on city centre parking, combined with much cheaper non-profit public transport would help. Why public transport should have to be profit making, I dont know. Private transport isnt. Nobody expects a return on investment when they buy a car.

I came within a half-centimeter of posting that link myself yesterday! I kinda thought, "Somebody else will do it." :)

I'm trying to imagine how it would work in the US. First of all I suspect the automobile manufacturers would exert about a little-finger's worth of power on Congress to prevent it ever happening. If it did happen, motorists would then try to find a way to outsmart the black boxes. And if they couldn't do that, why then they'd just go deeper into debt, driving the same way as always....

With satellites, black boxes and computers to tally the bills, it sounds to me like an accounting nightmare.

In California they use "carpool lanes". These are lanes of traffic reserved for vehicles with more than one occupant.

Gridlock by itself seems to dissuade many from using the Interstate highway system during peak hours (here in Michigan anyway).

If the intent is to get cars off the roads then one alternative is to do it by fiat. Cars with license plates that end in an odd number may use particular roads on odd numbered days. Even numbered license plates use the road on even days. This sort of system works well for watering lawns, why not congested highways.

I think that the best answer is to come up with a few acceptable alternatives; mass transit, telecommuting, banning automobiles in congested downtown areas altogether; realizing that no sane person would willingly endure the gridlock if there was a substitute. Make the "right" thing easy and the "wrong" thing hard and human nature will take care of the rest.

regards
Dan

I like the idea as long as it cannot be abused to track people's movement. i.e. Can this be used in evidence in court to show that a person (or their car at least) was at the scene of a crime. What about hackers, they might be able to determine where a particular person was or falisify the records.

Security (computer-wise) would be everything in these situations.

Me again, different response, so I figure different reply post.....:rolleyes:

It would seem to me that like the current road tax, the fees that are paid should be determine by how much the vehicule pollutes. The bigger/higher gas consumption the higher the fee.

The difference should be bigger than the current piddly difference in the road taxes. about £100 seperates the highest from the lowest road taxes. Perhaps a bigger spread will deter some people from buying unnecessarily large or unnecessaily consuming vehicules (read new 12mpg Jeep Cherokee, or Liberty to those in North America).

Dan,
The concept of odd/even does not really work for cars because people can have multiple cars. The most likely outcome should they implement such a system would be that people would buy more cars :mad:.

I think that those people in Singapour have it right. There are only a limited number of cars in the country. You have to obtain the permit to drive the car on the road. One permit PER CAR. If you have 2 cars, 2 permits are needed. As a result the goverment can directly limit the number of cars on the road. These permits are sellable and can easily cost into the $10000-15000US or more.

That definitly seems like the best system, but what it relies on is that everybody can get around with out car ever. So as I understand it, if you wanted to use a car on a infrequent basis, you would still need one of these permits. Therefore the public transit system would have to be able to fill the FULL needs of most of the population on a permanent basis. A claim that most countries cannot even come close to making.:(

:beer:

Since the problem is not necessarily too many cars, but too many vehicle miles traveled, I favor any proposal which visibly increases the distance-related cost of driving, such as fuel taxation. Scary thought: in California, the price of gasoline in 2002 is about the same as it was 20 years ago, without adjusting for inflation.

However, John, if somebody has 0 cars then there is not the pollution associated with making the car + that person have travelled 0 vehicule miles during this time!

From a car owners perspective, I think taxing people on how far they drive is a great idea. I would like to see this
system rather than our current system of paying car registration based on engine cylinders. With a system like
this, an elderly person who only needs a car to go to the shops and visit friends will pay a lot less.
People you refuse to walk, ride, catch public transport will pay a much higher price. This new way means
the less you drive the less you pay. Once you start to hit people in their wallets they will start to drive less
and use alternative means of transport. At the moment once you pay your "Rego" you are free to drive as far
as you want, with no penalties other than buying petrol. The only way to reduce the amount of cars on the
road is to make it very expensive. I can't think of any other way to reduce the amount people drive.

The system here is like this:
up to 4 cylinders ~$450 AUD per year
up to 6 cylinders ~$550 AUD per year
up to 8 cylinders ~$650 AUD per year

It is based on cylinders not actual litre capacity, so a 4.5 litre V8 pays the same as an 8 litre V8.

CHEERS.

Therefore the public transit system would have to be able to fill the FULL needs of most of the population on a permanent basis. A claim that most countries cannot even come close to making.

You are absolutely right. If in a perfect world, if there were little to no cars on the road, there would need to
be a VERY GOOD public transport system, which just isn't going to happen. Unfortunately/fortunately
(depending on how you view it) people have very different lives and not one system
can cater for all their needs. People mention urban sprawl as a problem that makes people have to cover great distances.
Well the fact is, that it is not possible to have 1 million+ people all living within a 16km/10mile radius. Also people
can't really choose where (location) they work. Most people apply for jobs not on where the job is but more on the
actual job and pay. If your lucky enough to get the job then you may have to travel great distances. Unfortunately
your partner probably works in the opposite direction, so you end up having two cars. There are no simple answers.
And a bicycle isn't the answer for everyone.

eg. On the weekend my wife and I went looking for house stuff, light fittings, furniture, curtains, pretty exciting stuff :-)
There is no way we could have done this on a bike, not to mention Anna wouldn't have. We covered a lot of
territory looking for prices, it was a warm day also, so I can't imagine shopping while feeling hot and sticky.
There is a place for cars, I just wish more people would at least try to think of an alternative before they start up the engine.

CHEERS.

Sounds like a toll road concept, to me. But tracking people's whereabouts won't sit well with anyone.

Anyway, automobiles are already overused. I can't imagine the third world with their billions adopting our vision of motorized gridlock. Something should be done.

I think it will just make people use back roads which can't cope with as many cars as the major ones. Another thing, has anybody thought about how much the administration of such a system is likely to cost? I think they should just tax fuel to raise the revenue, with rebates available for delivery/emergency vehicles and such. The funds from it would (ideally) be spent on funding public transport.

Originally posted by Chris L
The funds from it would (ideally) be spent on funding public transport.
Yes, they would--but the keyword here is "ideally." :( In real life, the funds will go towards paving more parking lots, or doing something else to please motorists.

Originally posted by JonR

Yes, they would--but the keyword here is "ideally." :( In real life, the funds will go towards paving more parking lots, or doing something else to please motorists.
I say, let's pave the moon and let motorists commute from there.

Oops! That means my wife won't get home until next month...

the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone has just pushed forward a plan to charge private motorists inside central London. This is nothing to do with satellite tracking of cars, but a central zone where if you think you are a Very Important Person who Needs a Car, you will have to pay for it. The majority of Londoners dont use cars to travel to the West End or City, so it makes a lot of sense to free up road space for the double deckers.

Our Ken was the one who lowered the price of public transport in the 1980s, and ran the Socialist Republic of Greater London, until Maggie Thatcher carved it up. He did a lot of loony things, but cheap public transport was not one of them. Now he has grown up, and makes a pretty good mayor.

Originally posted by MichaelW
the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone has just pushed forward a plan to charge private motorists inside central London.
This reminds me: if you don't drive, you can still vote.

Perhaps someone will suggest that car drivers be allowed two votes. Even better, one vote for each car/SUV you own.

There are no back roads to escape along because they are *all* being tracked.

The situation in Britain is a bit different to USA or Australia. Here we can simply expand cities outwards and build road systems to cope with expected demand. When the more inner parts of the city become congested, then market forces take over - you either accept the congestion or adopt an alternative (bicycle, bus, motorbike or leave the area).

In Britain, they can't do this, there simply isn't the land area available, so they need to cut back on congestion so that vital services and business/freight traffic is still viable.