Road pricing bill before Commons

[DodgyAgent]

You've got some kind of weird tunnel vision when it comes to my posts haven't you? I've repeated over and over that I do own a car, that I drive it to work occasionally, that my partner uses it to ferry four children to endless activities. The thing is I know that this is a luxury which I have to pay for and which I am not paying anything like enough for at the moment.

That's the whole point of this thread. Road charging is being introduced to make people pay more for the congestion they are causing, and a lot of people are objecting to it and claiming it's unfair or an infringement of their rights or that it will destroy society somehow. As it happens, my partner's runs back and forth between football, swimming, school, cub scouts, friends' parties, after school activities and other events are unlikely to be covered by road charging because the routes she uses aren't congested. Maybe the same applies to you in Rochdale, I dunno.

The roads I would use to get to work, at the time I travel to work, clearly are congested and have been in most places I've worked over the last 20 years. So I've always used a bicycle or public transport. That's my choice, and using your car is your choice. Just don't claim it's unfair for you to be charged a lot of money for having chosen the convenient option.

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?

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.

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.

In my view there are four choices:

1. Roads are completely funded by the taxpayer (as they are now)
2. Road usage is funded directly by the motorist according to usage.
3. A system is implemented whereby offering a combination of 1 & 2
4. The taxpayer continues to fund road usage and then road usage is then double charged on top of the taxs that we already pay.

I know which one we are heading towards. Free road use for everyone should be one of our most fundamental rights. It is in the interets of society that human beings should be mobile, which puts car usage up there with prayer in the "good" table. After all one of the first things that dictators do is to make sure they do not build roads. You only have to go to Norfolk- the country's most non mobile population (or watch Kingdom with Stephen Fry) to realise how unhealthy it is for people to remain in the same place for all of their lives.

[The Lone Gunman]

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?

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.

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 not 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.

In my view there are four choices:

1. Roads are completely funded by the taxpayer (as they are now)
2. Road usage is funded directly by the motorist according to usage.
3. A system is implemented whereby offering a combination of 1 & 2
4. The taxpayer continues to fund road usage and then road usage is then double charged on top of the taxs that we already pay.

I know which one we are heading towards

Don't forget to add the tackings from the new coin operated pedestrian crossings and bus stops, after all it would be unfair not to charge them for deliberately stopping traffic thus causing congestion.

[wendigo100]

Nah, that ain't going to happen.

It did for many years up to the late 1990s.

[fzbucks]

If you can just explain to me how planting trees reduces road congestion then I'd be happy to consider the offer, thanks.

HAHAHAHAHAHA you think road pricing is about congestion HAHAHAHAHA it's another green scheme coming under the brolly of reducing the carbon footprint etc - congestion is not because there are too may people going to work it's because the infrastructure hasn't been updated since the 60's

how is charging going to reduce congestion? by FORCING people off the roads - that's hardly a solution is it - WHICH IS WHY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY ABOUT THE PROPOSAL

[wendigo100]

how is charging going to reduce congestion? by FORCING people off the roads - that's hardly a solution is it - WHICH IS WHY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY ABOUT THE PROPOSAL

It will force the poor off the roads, or out of the food shops!

"Sorry kids, daddy can't afford to travel to work any more..."

[dang65]

how is charging going to reduce congestion? by FORCING people off the roads - that's hardly a solution is it

Uh, yes, that is a solution.

Lot of people on road = congestion.
Not many people on road = not congestion.

It's a fairly simple rule to follow.

[sasguru]

Uh, yes, that is a solution.

Lot of people on road = congestion.
Not many people on road = not congestion.

It's a fairly simple rule to follow.

Sadly forcing people off the road is the only solution. There are far too many unnecessary journeys anyway. A "price by journey" policy is the fairest way to deal with this. And there could be exemptions for essential journeys e.g. work.

[wendigo100]

Sadly forcing people off the road is the only solution. There are far too many unnecessary journeys anyway. A "price by journey" policy is the fairest way to deal with this. And there could be exemptions for essential journeys e.g. work.

I'd guess that 99% of the vehicles on the M25 with me in the morning and evening are work. You'd have to be mad to use it otherwise.

[dang65]

And there could be exemptions for essential journeys e.g. work.

How would you class a journey as essential, and how would people prove it? I imagine that services like the police, fire and ambulance would always be exempt, naturally. Disabled drivers too. But haulage companies and delivery vans can schedule their hours to avoid charging periods, or just pay up like everyone else. People like plumbers and builders would presumably pass their charges on to their customers. That would be normal. I don't see why they should get exempted though. And commuters... they're the main cause of congestion and the major target of the charge.

[DodgyAgent]

How would you class a journey as essential, and how would people prove it? I imagine that services like the police, fire and ambulance would always be exempt, naturally. Disabled drivers too. But haulage companies and delivery vans can schedule their hours to avoid charging periods, or just pay up like everyone else. People like plumbers and builders would presumably pass their charges on to their customers. That would be normal. I don't see why they should get exempted though. And commuters... they're the main cause of congestion and the major target of the charge.

So the commuters would need to earn more in order to pay for travel which would shunt up wages and so on