-
Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Vehicle Tracking.
- Thread starter sausage2
- Start date
E
exerk
Guest
You might want to check how NU's Pay-As-You-Drive insurance works too.
O
Oh sir
Guest
Studies by one of the insurance companies has already showed that this type of tracking could NOT be used to prosecute you for speeding, or indeed keep an eye on you in any way shape or form. Apparently the enormous amounts of data involved make it completely impossible. (Along with the fact that a tracking device is insufficient evidence under current law, as Tigger will confirm).
More scaremongering and Orwellian paranoia for the good old British public! They love it!
DT_Xtremez_35:
More scaremongering and Orwellian paranoia for the good old British public! They love it!
DT_Xtremez_35:8:15fromOdium
Sergeant
- 490
- 0
- 0
Sausage2 chill. It will be another huge Government IT blunder, they'll pay a fortune to EDS for a preliminary study that will take 10 years (extending to 25 due to unforeseen technical hitches - like: cars move, rain etc) by then all the oil will have run out and we'll be walking everywhere anyway.
- 12,275
- 461
- 83
I'm just going to cover the aerial or the box that houses the aerial in tin foil and drive for free...simple.
E
exerk
Guest
Studies by one of the insurance companies has already showed that this type of tracking could NOT be used to prosecute you for speeding, or indeed keep an eye on you in any way shape or form. Apparently the enormous amounts of data involved make it completely impossible. (Along with the fact that a tracking device is insufficient evidence under current law, as Tigger will confirm).
More scaremongering and Orwellian paranoia for the good old British public! They love it!
I work in that world OS, on the IT side, and I know what is possible. While the amount of data to be mined would prohibit its use as a speed-trap (it's easier and cheaper to use averaging cameras) it only requires processing power - and the government can afford lots of that.
I'm not trying to add to any paranoia here by the way, quite simply as someone else has said the government IT record means it will probably be a total cock-up; however they might well try to get the insurance companies to do it for them - you have to have insurance (not strictly true) and an insurance company could easily mandate that you have to have a 'black box' to obtain insurance.
Yeah but CURRENT law can soon become old law....they change it as they see fit !!
CRACK ON......
DT_Xtremez_09:
O
Oh sir
Guest
Now that I like.
I'm sick to death of paying for my insurance, tax etc, and knowing that there are thousands, nay tens of thousands of scrotes driving around without any.
Off Topic
Not sure if you're aware, (you probably are) but this is genius.... The Traffic Police now have the power to (and usually do) impound vehicles and crush them when they are found to be driven without insurance and tax. More of that I say.
Another thought: In my part of town I've noticed hundreds of Polish registered vehicles in the last year. I see on the news the other day that Poles (amongst others) aren't bothering to register their cars in the UK as they then get away with speeding camera fines etc. They also think they're avoiding the road tax, MOTs etc.
In RAFG we all had to BFG our cars, change headlights etc within 30 days IIRC. Isn't it time for a crackdown on foreign registered cars in OUR country?
Off Topic
K
katinthehat
Guest
Have to agree with you there OS - around here the migrant population are employed on the land in their droves, and their cars are to be found all over - and I would love to know the law regarding their tax, insurance & MOT regulations.
Perhaps Tigger could enlighten me???
- 12,275
- 461
- 83
You know what it's like only too well around here Oh Sir...If you are involved in a ding around these parts and the car is something like a J reg and the person who steps out is 'not from these parts' you can kiss your no-claims goodbye...
All the cops have to do is walk around the extremities of Watford Tesco's car park (it's big and they think that if they park in the far corners no-one can be ars*d to walk out there and look...and they're right) and they'll spot dozens of tax dodgers...If I can think of doing that why does nobody else?
They'll probably stumble across a whole bunch of other stuff if they did like no MOT, Insurance, right to be in the country......
All the cops have to do is walk around the extremities of Watford Tesco's car park (it's big and they think that if they park in the far corners no-one can be ars*d to walk out there and look...and they're right) and they'll spot dozens of tax dodgers...If I can think of doing that why does nobody else?
They'll probably stumble across a whole bunch of other stuff if they did like no MOT, Insurance, right to be in the country......
T
TheHogwartsBEngO
Guest
The road pricing policy for me personally would probably not cost me that much - I drive uncongested rural roads to work each day although Mrs BEngO has to be part of the 'school run' because she is a teacher.
What I object to is the constant down-treading of the use of cars and yet there is no viable alternative. People don't choose to sit in traffic jams every day, they are there because they need to be - to get to work.
I would say the vast majority of people in this country are vehemently opposed to road-pricing but every political party knows that at some level it makes sense and is the natural progression of an integrated transport policy - no party will ever stand up and say we're against it.
What really sticks in the craw is that Blair and new-labour were voted-in in '97 by aiming their campaign to draw middle-calss, middle-england voters away from the Tories - this demographic was called 'Mondeo Man' after the type of vehicle these people were likely to drive (average white male, average family car). Since coming to power, new-labour has done it's upmost to stop Mondeo Man using his Mondeo - but simultaneously making it impossible for him to do anything else. He therefore pays through the nose every time he drives. It stinks.
What I object to is the constant down-treading of the use of cars and yet there is no viable alternative. People don't choose to sit in traffic jams every day, they are there because they need to be - to get to work.
I would say the vast majority of people in this country are vehemently opposed to road-pricing but every political party knows that at some level it makes sense and is the natural progression of an integrated transport policy - no party will ever stand up and say we're against it.
What really sticks in the craw is that Blair and new-labour were voted-in in '97 by aiming their campaign to draw middle-calss, middle-england voters away from the Tories - this demographic was called 'Mondeo Man' after the type of vehicle these people were likely to drive (average white male, average family car). Since coming to power, new-labour has done it's upmost to stop Mondeo Man using his Mondeo - but simultaneously making it impossible for him to do anything else. He therefore pays through the nose every time he drives. It stinks.
- 12,275
- 461
- 83
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6349027.stm
This petition has almost reached one million...
On Sky news this morning some government spokemen was quoted (didn't get his name...sorry) as saying that this made the government even more determined to introduce the new measures...
I said this before and I'll say it again...If the Tories can't beat these clowns into power this time around they might as well give up....
This petition has almost reached one million...
On Sky news this morning some government spokemen was quoted (didn't get his name...sorry) as saying that this made the government even more determined to introduce the new measures...
I said this before and I'll say it again...If the Tories can't beat these clowns into power this time around they might as well give up....
C
Chuff Chart
Guest
What gets me the most is THEY wanna bill you to drive and pay for every mile, but YOU have to stump up the 200 quid to buy the box in the first place ::/:
On the subject of migrant insurance, driving and such, the Linconlshire one eye inbred echo had an interesting stat on the front page a few weks ago, over 6000 speeding offences last year were comitted by immigrants that they couldnt convict and therfor lost 500,000 quid in revenue for fines. And a friend of mine had her car smacked in a car park by one of the immigrant population, and they couldnt claim off him cos he had no insurance or road tax for this country.
On the subject of migrant insurance, driving and such, the Linconlshire one eye inbred echo had an interesting stat on the front page a few weks ago, over 6000 speeding offences last year were comitted by immigrants that they couldnt convict and therfor lost 500,000 quid in revenue for fines. And a friend of mine had her car smacked in a car park by one of the immigrant population, and they couldnt claim off him cos he had no insurance or road tax for this country.
G
grumpyoldb
Guest
I've just signed it, as living and working in Gtr Manchester, it will affect me.
All the road charging will do is to create "rat runs" as commuters try to avoid it.
Short cuts will be taken through housing estates, around schools and shops. Just where you don't want the traffic to be. They cant put camera's on every single lamp post, so it just won't work. Another waste of taxpayers money.
If they want to get the traffic moving, remove the bl**dy bus lanes, and have two lanes instead of one. That will double the traffic flow.
It's not rocket science.
All the road charging will do is to create "rat runs" as commuters try to avoid it.
Short cuts will be taken through housing estates, around schools and shops. Just where you don't want the traffic to be. They cant put camera's on every single lamp post, so it just won't work. Another waste of taxpayers money.
If they want to get the traffic moving, remove the bl**dy bus lanes, and have two lanes instead of one. That will double the traffic flow.
It's not rocket science.
Just watching National part of the ITV News.
There was a bit about the No10 Petition against Vehicle Tracking. Just as the camera was set to go on to the starter of the petition, the feed was cut. No explanation of apologies and nothing more said.
Is Big Brother watching and cutting the feed?
There was a bit about the No10 Petition against Vehicle Tracking. Just as the camera was set to go on to the starter of the petition, the feed was cut. No explanation of apologies and nothing more said.
Is Big Brother watching and cutting the feed?
S
scoobyroo
Guest
Fact of the matter is, this country is turning to complete rat sh1t as a result of the fools pretending to run it!! And the answer?............ make Mr&Mrs Joe P pay through the nose for yet another thing!!!!! It won't reduce conjestion, or help the environment, it p1sses me off that they use that all the s@dding time, all it will achieve is to add yet another thing to the extensive list of "Rip-Off-Britain"!!
I used to love this country and being British, but it is going down hill fast!!
Off Topic Sorry for meandering off topicOff Topic
I used to love this country and being British, but it is going down hill fast!!
Off Topic Sorry for meandering off topicOff Topic
B
Bored@work
Guest
Having to have a 'black box' to get insurance isn't going to stop people driving without insurance. They weren't going to get insurance anyway, why would the requirement to have a tracking device fitted to their car make any difference?
Got an e-mail from Tony
Got an e-mail from Tony
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair ******
Got an e-mail from Tony
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair ******
M
Mrs_Monobrow
Guest
I got one of them too!
Mind you, so did 1.5 million other people!
Still hasnt changed my mind though. This road pricing idea is bollox! ::/:
Mind you, so did 1.5 million other people!
Still hasnt changed my mind though. This road pricing idea is bollox! ::/:
P
Pan Warrior
Guest
Make a start on road pricing or ' lose out on £1.4bn'
Make a start on road pricing or ' lose out on £1.4bn'
The Government is attempting to “blackmail” local authorities into introducing congestion charging by refusing to fund public transport schemes unless they are linked to a new tax on motorists.
The Department for Transport has established a £1.4 billion fund for investment in local transport but has told councils that any bid for a share of the money must include congestion charging.
Local authority leaders have accused the Government of trying to force their hand and make them take the risk of a political backlash from drivers.
More than 1.6 million people have already signed a Downing Street website petition against road pricing. Tony Blair will make a statement tomorrow responding to the petition, which closes tonight.
link:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1409328.ece
Make a start on road pricing or ' lose out on £1.4bn'
The Government is attempting to “blackmail” local authorities into introducing congestion charging by refusing to fund public transport schemes unless they are linked to a new tax on motorists.
The Department for Transport has established a £1.4 billion fund for investment in local transport but has told councils that any bid for a share of the money must include congestion charging.
Local authority leaders have accused the Government of trying to force their hand and make them take the risk of a political backlash from drivers.
More than 1.6 million people have already signed a Downing Street website petition against road pricing. Tony Blair will make a statement tomorrow responding to the petition, which closes tonight.
link:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1409328.ece