Road pricing bill before Commons

[dang65]

First of all now that you have admitted that your partner drives you are backtracking fast. I quote your words:

I'm not really clear why 1.8m blinkered idiots going onto a website and clicking a button should have earned any sort right to force the other 60 million of us to put up with their noise, smell, speed, psychopathic behaviour, obesity and general destruction of the countryside and clogging of towns.

Owning and running a private car is an outrageous luxury which people have got away with for way too long, and a feeble road pricing bill will go nowhere near as far as it should.

Does your partner know what you think of her/him?

You've accused me of "backtracking" before and I asked you then in what way you think I'm doing so. My question was why 1.8m blinkered idiots (i.e. people who are too stupid to see the damage and congestion they themselves are causing) should have a right to force the rest of us (i.e. people who can see quite clearly that the current situation is unsustainable and unreasonable) to have to put up with their noise, smell, speed, psychopathic behaviour, obesity and general destruction of the countryside and clogging of towns.

I still stand by that. I know I am an occasional car user and I accept that I'm getting away with a liberty. I don't know how many times I've said that now. Yes, my partner does know what I think of her driving everywhere, and we've had many lively discussions on the subject. I've certainly heard all the excuses before.

Secondly, your attitude to road usage being, for some strange reason, morally reprehensible, shows that you have been duped/brainwashed by the people to who Lone gunman refers in his accurate summary of the true miotives for road use charge.

We've been over all this as well. It's not "for some strange reason". The destruction, congestion, noise, smell and danger of cars is fully documented and has been for many years. Even if there hadn't been one single official study on the subject you'd only have to take a little look around you to see it anyway. If you think that cars are not doing repeated (and in some cases irreversable) damage to the planet then you're living in complete denial. That's completely aside from the congestion issue which, to quote Basil Fawlty, is stating the bleedin' obvious.

You also assert in true right wing fashion (I am not saying that as a criticism) that road pricing should be payable according to means as opposed to being linked to ability to pay. Now whilst there are no greater advocates of capitalism than me, I am sure that adding road usage to the list of services and items that people have to pay for is going to hit the poorer/lower earners in society to the detriment of the economy and quality of life.

You've spent a fair bit of this thread telling me I'm a Labour stooge, and now I'm right wing? Or is that the same thing on your planet?

If you value anything by price then you hit people that can't afford to pay. I can't afford a helicopter or a private swimming pool, although both would be a great convenience for me. Poor people already don't have cars. As mentioned previously, if you can buy and run a car then you are not poor, or even a bit hard up. Lower earners may use cars at the moment, but they'll have to decide if they can continue to do so or if they have to switch to public transport. It seems that this scheme is tied in to improved public transport and reduced ticket prices anyway. It has to be.

That just leaves those with the means and the ability to pay. If you can't pay then you don't get to use your car on congested roads.

[Chugnut]

...have to put up with their noise, smell, speed, psychopathic behaviour, obesity and general destruction of the countryside and clogging of towns...

You're labelling 1.8m people as psychopatic and obese for expressing their displeasure? Tune in next week to "Sweeping Generalisations".

...I can't afford a helicopter or a private swimming pool, although both would be a great convenience for me...

I trust you woudn't indulge though since both of these luxuries could hardly be accused of treading lightly on the planet, in either their construction or usage.

[BoredBloke]

"You've got some kind of weird tunnel vision when it comes to my posts haven't you? "

What was the point made earlier? 20% of the traffic on the roads at peak times is down to the school run mums. Yet your wife uses the car to drive your sprogs to their school, a journey by it's very nature is local and should be done via public transport. You sit there pontificating about how other use their cars while your wife ferrys your little darlings around to school and back. What was the comment earlier? 20% of congesstion traffic is down to the school run mums i.e. your wife.

So why don't your kids use public transport/cycle/walk to school?

[The Lone Gunman]

Could I just clarify: Once the plebs are all on the busses and there is no more congestion, does that mean that we could then drive for free?

[King Cnvt]

You've accused me of "backtracking" before and I asked you then in what way you think I'm doing so. My question was why 1.8m blinkered idiots (i.e. people who are too stupid to see the damage and congestion they themselves are causing) should have a right to force the rest of us (i.e. people who can see quite clearly that the current situation is unsustainable and unreasonable) to have to put up with their noise, smell, speed, psychopathic behaviour, obesity and general destruction of the countryside and clogging of towns.

I still stand by that. I know I am an occasional car user and I accept that I'm getting away with a liberty. I don't know how many times I've said that now. Yes, my partner does know what I think of her driving everywhere, and we've had many lively discussions on the subject. I've certainly heard all the excuses before.

We've been over all this as well. It's not "for some strange reason". The destruction, congestion, noise, smell and danger of cars is fully documented and has been for many years. Even if there hadn't been one single official study on the subject you'd only have to take a little look around you to see it anyway. If you think that cars are not doing repeated (and in some cases irreversable) damage to the planet then you're living in complete denial. That's completely aside from the congestion issue which, to quote Basil Fawlty, is stating the bleedin' obvious.

You've spent a fair bit of this thread telling me I'm a Labour stooge, and now I'm right wing? Or is that the same thing on your planet?

If you value anything by price then you hit people that can't afford to pay. I can't afford a helicopter or a private swimming pool, although both would be a great convenience for me. Poor people already don't have cars. As mentioned previously, if you can buy and run a car then you are not poor, or even a bit hard up. Lower earners may use cars at the moment, but they'll have to decide if they can continue to do so or if they have to switch to public transport. It seems that this scheme is tied in to improved public transport and reduced ticket prices anyway. It has to be.

That just leaves those with the means and the ability to pay. If you can't pay then you don't get to use your car on congested roads.

http://www.pinelog.co.uk/domestic_in...odname=Braemar

Cheap as chips.

[Bagpuss]

Reduce congestion=more home working. Why is it never touted as a possible remedy?

1/ It's not taxable
2/ It makes sense

No, let's tax people who need to use cars to get to work, despite congestion being now worse now than 10 years ago. How can congestion be worse, unless it's being caused by mass imigration to this country?

A population of 60million in 1997 with 60 million plus cars caused no more congestion than a population of 60 million with 80 million plus cars.

It's all a big con.

[wendigo100]

How can congestion be worse, unless it's being caused by mass imigration to this country?

Aha!

[BoredBloke]

So if you get the public to pay for something (roads) and then charge them again to use it, would that be like charging people to use the NHS? Should we also adopt this model? Why should generally unfit people have free use of this luxury?

[gingerjedi]

I'm no Albert Einstein but I remember something from my physics lessons: 'faster flow=pressure low' everyone should be forced to get a professional race drivers license and then the speed limit could be put up to 120mph or more, that should get the country moving again.

HTH.

[wendigo100]

So if you get the public to pay for something (roads) and then charge them again to use it, would that be like charging people to use the NHS? Should we also adopt this model? Why should generally unfit people have free use of this luxury?

Excellent point. Pay for firemen as you use them too. Why should people with inflammable houses get off scot free?

And policemen. Anyone who gets beaten up, burgled or defrauded should pay for old bill to catch the felons!