|
U-Know! Forum » Congestion Charging |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 14:33
|
||
|
As i said before - there is an easy solution, and it's the one that's *intended* by the scheme... stop using your car! The point of the Congestion Charge is to get people onto public transport. It involves tracking cars, because there's no other way of enforcing a Congestion Charge. jeez... am i the only one who sees that?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 14:36
|
||
|
Oh yeah, and a couple of other things... as a non-car user by choice, what about MY civil right to breathe air that's not filled with poison; MY civil right to live in an environment not echoing to the sound of destruction-by-car-use; MY civil right not to be the target of a terrorist attack induced by motorists' demands for cheap oil; MY civil ri.... oh sorry, i forgot, the only civil rights that actually matter are the rights of motorists.
|
|||
|
cookie 77 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 15:02
|
||
|
Woah there Grufty! firstly... I totally agree with schemes to get people out of their cars, and am not anti-the congestion charge but the surveillance angle is a totally separate issue. Its the ethos around it.. about privacy and civil liberties. You can say "stop using your car" as a solution, but is that fuelled by a (totally justified and agreed with) anti car sentiment? But what if suddenly you had to register with ID to buy any tube/bus ticket, so your movements around the network could be tracked and logged? Would you say "stop using public transport"? and secondly.. Ok I haven't researched this one extensively, as I don't get to Nodnol that much but.. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29390.html) "So, when Ken talks merrily of cameras being panned, zoomed and being used to identify drivers, we have clear purpose-drift and the probable need for whole new categories of registration for TfL under the data protection act." I've read conflicting stuff too, so I've really no concrete idea of what this system is capable off, but _possibly_ these cameras can be used for bike/pedestrian surveillance too?
|
|||
Lord Lucan 2702 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 15:09
|
||
|
Hang on. Read my first posting on this (at 10.31) and you'll realise I agree with you. My second posting (at 14.12) was regarding a SEPARATE issue of using the cameras for surveillance, rather than identifying cars for the congestion charge. Did you read the link I posted up? I agree with the congestion charge totally and for all the reasons you list. I do not agree with the cameras also being used to focus on drivers faces and an identification system used by the police without any public consultation. The two views are not incompatible.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 15:14
|
||
|
Y'know, thinking about the idea that Congestion Charging could be used to track people... i'm tempted to say "good!" Maybe we want to keep an eye on the people killing the planet and poisoning our air? I dunno, perhaps every week the newspapers could run images of the heaviest car users (as detected by CC cameras) in a "name and shame" feature... "Mr. Jones of Clapham this week burnt 120 litres of unleaded when he could have used 1/100th of the energy by getting up half an hour earlier and using the tube." I am - of course - being ironic... but not very. The sooner people get it into their heads that car usage is a luxury, not a right; and a luxury that fucks up the environment for the rest of us, creates wars in the middle east, and is directly responsible for ruining our planet; the better. And y'know; i'm actually not sure how ironic i'm being when i say that i couldn't give a flying feck about the "right" of car users to remain anonymous and untracked. If they start to track people on public transport then i shall have a problem. Not because i use public transport rather than cars; but because i believe no positive function would be served by it.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 15:17
|
||
|
I know, LL. I do understand that the two issues are separate; but check out my response to cookie (just above). Hell, if the paranoia of being tracked gets one extra people out of their car...? Good!
|
|||
|
cookie 77 posts |
Feb 27, 2003, 16:07
|
||
|
"Y'know, thinking about the idea that Congestion Charging could be used to track people... i'm tempted to say "good!" Maybe we want to keep an eye on the people killing the planet and poisoning our air?" Nice idea, but in reality who's gonna have access to these cameras? The anti-roads movement? I don't think so. If it does have the surveillance capacities claimed it will most likely end up, amongst other things, being used against those challenging car culture, oil culture and all the interconnected things.
|
|||
|
Lord Lucan 2702 posts |
Feb 28, 2003, 12:18
|
||
|
Yeah, I sympathise with that view to some extent. The bloody thing is supposed to be a deterrent after all. I'm just concerned about the slow eroding of civil liberties which seems to be happening here, especially in cities. Also, on another issue, an interesting development that I've noticed is that now it's up and running and working well (albeit early days) the Evening Standard, who've been loudly anti-CC all along, have had to drop their 'it'll never work' stance, and now they're criticising it for working too well and are gleefully saying it won't raise as much money as was predicted. Jeez, poor Ken really can't win in their eyes. Anyway, Ken's answer to this new angle on it is that most of the plans for use of the revenue are bonus extra add-on ideas, so any small shortfall won't actually affect core pledges in any way. The Evening Standard sucks... or should that be blows? Hmm. Also, Steven Norris seems to be on a suicidal mission to lose the next mayoral election again by sticking doggedly to the pledge that he'd get rid of the CC. Most Londoners supported it before it was implemented, now I'm sure even more support it now it's been proven to work. Norris is repeatedly shooting himself in the foot on this one. Good!
|
|||
|
Killer 255 posts |
Feb 28, 2003, 12:24
|
||
Wasn't Steven Norris in favour of congestion charging before Ken got elected ?
|
|||
|
Blaidd 125 posts |
Feb 28, 2003, 13:30
|
||
|
Cunning management ploy........................ Why is it that where I work the entrance to the car park is outside the Zone...................... But the exit is IN the zone ?? Currently living under desk & eating post its. B
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
