|
U-Know! Forum » Congestion Charging |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
necropolist 1689 posts |
Feb 19, 2003, 11:18
|
||
|
As I think I said at (or near) the beginning - it's not that the CC is a dreadful idea, but as it is it's being poorly carried out. And there are real issues with that that need addressing before simply going 'ra ra, cars are bad, stop nasty car drivers'. Because if the scheme is badly carried out it will fail, and be stopped entirely. So it's important to actually address its shortcomings. >If it slows down our rampant exploitation and devestation of oil producing areas, then this is helping the truly poor. To say otherwise is (in my opinion) to show a dangerous lack of perspective and misunderstanding of consequences. That's true, but it is true for many many other issues as well. If we were to follow this thru to its logical extent it would mean half of our lives being priced beyond the reach of most people. And given the way the world is, none (or very very few) of the really poorest would actually benefit - only a few rich people (here and in the 'poor' countries), so I don't think that that’s much of a solution, just a way of increasing the divide between rich and poor in this country. >but yeah, ultimately there will always be an area on the edge of the zone that sees some negative impact. So that makes it alright? Course not, what it means is that it must be carried out in a really thorough going manner, residents parking permits should be bloody free - charge for second vehicles maybe, but not for first ones. It requires a systematic approach if the system is to work, and 'looking after' the fringe area's is an important part of that >Just where's that cash coming from BEFORE the charge goes into effect?.... Ken's spare funds have been going into the infrastructure of the congestion charge (a big up-front cost) Well, there's one area straight away then! But for a more detailed reply, have a look at my other response this morning to LL's posts. >If you're driving a car into London every day, and still "the worst off" in society then this planet is clearly not in half as bad a state as i once believed. This goes back to my second point again. I should have been more precise in my comment tho (as I think I was elsewhere in that no it's not the very worst off, in the UK, who will be worst hit (as you say they can't afford to drive a car) but it will be those slightly, but only slightly, better off than that. Somewhere you also ask who, other than medical staff, should be exempted. Not a vast number of people obviously - that would remove the whole point of the charge. But especially all those who must start or finish work in unsocial hours when there is little public transport available, and those who must carry lots of stuff with them to their jobs (there is room for argument about those who can pass the charge on to their customers there) The CC aint a bad idea, but the way its being carried out has a lot of holes in, imo, in part this is because blair doesn't want it to be too succesful, cos then ken will get the credit, which would never do
|
|||
ratcni01 916 posts |
Feb 20, 2003, 11:33
|
||
|
the traffic is definitely down. I ride into town every day and there has been a dramtic improvement. however this may be down to the fact that six months ago they doubled the delays(reds) on all the traffic lights to make it "feel" worse and cabbie and lorry drivers are reporting a return to the old optimsed "following" settings. apparently 300 extra sets of lights have gone up in the last year too. if the story about 10000 wrong congestion charge fines is true then it doesn't matter how well it works, ken will be in deep shirt. i say give it a go, better than doing fuck all 'cos you can't make your mind up. it's far from ideal but doing nothing doesn't help either
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Feb 20, 2003, 11:52
|
||
Has everyone seen that photo of the 100m long dead end street with the big 'C' logo painted at the entrance ... a real jobsworth one that is!
|
|||
|
munninhugin 135 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 00:08
|
||
|
Hmmmmm.....no discussion about the surveillance implications of CC. Who has access to the list of number plates? How long are they stored for? Evenings and weekends do the computers hum on recording number after number? Nice one Ken.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 03:14
|
||
|
easy solution. Ken's solution, in fact... GET OUT OF THE CAR! Use public transport if you're worried about your car being tracked. Jeez, the implication that Ken has introduced some kind of car-tracking system when his goal is to reduce car usage...? Come on... there are a few good arguments against CC (none of which sway me, of course, but there are some coherent ones) - this ain't one of them.
|
|||
|
cookie 77 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 10:23
|
||
|
Central London webcams go dark for anti-war demo 16/02/2003 http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29343.html More specifically - the last 2 paragraphs. verses: Does London mayor's 'ring of steel' breach UK Data Act? 19/02/2003 http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29390.html
|
|||
|
cookie 77 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 10:23
|
||
|
Low-tech solution beats London's hi-tech congestion charge http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/29485.html
|
|||
Lord Lucan 2702 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 10:31
|
||
|
It's easy enough to avoid having your number plate photographed. Don't drive in the charging area. If you ask me the enormous number of closed circuit TV cameras all over London (ostensibly to combat crime) is a much greater threat to liberties and privacy. A good proportion of surveillance cameras (eg: in shops, outside banks) are owned by private companies who are not accountable to the public. What are the potential uses of THEIR footage? If anyone wanted to track a car through central London it could be done easily with the thousands of closed circuit cameras on every street corner. No need to use the congestion charging cameras.
|
|||
|
Killer 255 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 12:36
|
||
Did you catch a TV programme ' Car Wars' I think it was on last Sunday on 2, I only saw the last couple of minutes, but they were talking with some government official - he was saying that development was well advanced on a national road pricing scheme. The plan was to abolish Road Tax, and reduce fuel duty and instead charge for mileage driven, with higher rates for city centres and lower rates the more rural it got , where it is generallly accepteted that public transport is not a viable option. This was to be run using GPRS transmitters, and tracking with satellites. This gave the potential of tracking every vehicle movement in the UK.
|
|||
|
Lord Lucan 2702 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 14:12
|
||
|
Well, I take back some of what I said earlier. Having checked around for more info on this I found this article... http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,9061,892085,00.html It seems you are right, munninhugin. It's outrageous that the cameras can be used for this purpose (and trained onto drivers faces, not just reg numbers) without any real announcement of the fact. I'm glad you bought this up, otherwise I'd never have bothered checking this out.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
