PDA

View Full Version : They clearly have more brains ...


Gary
22-02-2005, 11:37:09
... in Edinburgh than they do in London (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4287145.stm), but there again, they didn't vote in Ken Livingstone.

They voted on the issue instead.

With any luck this might set a precedent for the rest of the country.

Funkodrom
22-02-2005, 12:03:46
The London conjestion charge has been a great success. :beer:

King_Ghidra
22-02-2005, 12:05:22
the dutch have clearly got to you funko

Tizzy
22-02-2005, 12:05:23
The local press in Edinburgh were dead set against a congestion charge being brought in so the result isn't really a surprise.

Daft certainly, but no surprise.

Drekkus
22-02-2005, 12:13:33
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
the dutch have clearly got to you funko :lol: Conjestie!

Gary
22-02-2005, 12:26:27
Originally posted by Funkodrom
The London conjestion charge has been a great success. :beer: Ha !

Had the traffic been reduced to zero due to the charge the supporters would have claimed success due to the reduced traffic. It it had increased to infinity they'd have claimed success due to the money that the highway robbery brought in. In reality no exploitation of one sector of the public is ever a success by any reasonable moral standard.

Funkodrom
22-02-2005, 12:37:53
Traffic levels in London were unsustainable, it was a huge problem. This worked. (in fact it worked too well, traffic reduction was so much that income was much lower than expected).

I'd love to hear how you'd have solved what's basically an impossible problem - all solutions are going to fuck someone off.

Provost Harrison
22-02-2005, 12:39:42
It doesn't really make much sense in some of the smaller cities in the country where there just isn't the public transport infrastructure available as an alternative.

Funkodrom
22-02-2005, 12:48:36
No - you need the public transport alternative but there is in London.

And the exemptions are good enough for me. If you are disabled and need to drive you don't have to pay.

I don't see the problem.

Gary
22-02-2005, 12:59:53
The system is basically self limiting anyway. As congestion gets too bad in one area there is an incentive to move elsewhere.

If one wanted to encourage that, then decent infrastructure to elsewhere, and other business incentives, to companies is the way to go. Not beating up on the vulnerable who are just trying to make a living.

Besides where is the missing traffic supposed to have gone ? Moving the problem into someone else's back yard is no solution.

Gary
22-02-2005, 13:01:51
Oh yes and on the subject of public transport, you mean those overcrowded methods where peole are crammed in worse than farm animals, because there is a limit to how many trains etc. can be run. Oh great.

Oerdin
22-02-2005, 13:02:44
Originally posted by Funkodrom
The London conjestion charge has been a great success. :beer:

Bastards! Now San Francisco wants to charge people to drive downtown "because it worked so well in London". :shoot:

Gary
22-02-2005, 13:06:00
Correction,"because they claim that the London disaster worked well"

MoSe
22-02-2005, 13:08:50
Originally posted by Funkodrom
traffic reduction was so much that income was much lower than expected

so, you end to pay for "congesting" the town center, where there's no actual congestion because traffic dropped below what expected....

I'd have setup electronic gates, charging you a variable amount depending on how the zone is *actually* already congested when you get in.
If you get in first, there are few cars inside actually, no congestion yet, you pay a nominal fare (say 30p). As cars begin to get in, congestion levels rise, as the fare does, say up to 5 and more...

Funkodrom
22-02-2005, 13:11:59
Originally posted by Gary
Correction,"because they claim that the London disaster worked well"

How was London a disaster? It totally wasn't.

Gary
22-02-2005, 15:08:00
Because everything the antis said would happen, did.

Traffic is now worse around the edges, drivers are unfairly penalised, the poor are driven off the road to make room for the rich, tubes are more cramped than before, non-local folk are getting caught with fines for non-payment of that which they weren't aware they were being stung for, etc. etc. etc. It's just not a hot topic any more so doesn;t get debated in the papers. Fait accompli.

And worse they're now debating moving the border westwards. It's just a car haters paradise.

zmama
22-02-2005, 15:09:51
I definitely need to move there now!!

Drekkus
22-02-2005, 15:21:57
We were walking around in the centre of london on a sunday afternoon a few weeks ago, and it was like a scene from 48 days, absolutely empty.

Venom
22-02-2005, 15:28:21
48 days?

Drekkus
22-02-2005, 15:32:33
Yes, that's a special rendition of 28 days later. Lasts 5 hours.

Venom
22-02-2005, 15:35:35
It's not a really long Eddie Murphy movie sequel?

Drekkus
22-02-2005, 15:40:14
There's plenty of ugly people running around screaming incomprehensible shit, so it could be.

Oerdin
22-02-2005, 15:58:43
When was the last time Eddie Murphy made a movie worth watching?

Venom
22-02-2005, 16:02:12
Nutty Professor.

Beta1
22-02-2005, 16:06:52
Originally posted by Gary
Because everything the antis said would happen, did.

Traffic is now worse around the edges, drivers are unfairly penalised, the poor are driven off the road to make room for the rich, tubes are more cramped than before, non-local folk are getting caught with fines for non-payment of that which they weren't aware they were being stung for, etc. etc. etc. It's just not a hot topic any more so doesn;t get debated in the papers. Fait accompli.

And worse they're now debating moving the border westwards. It's just a car haters paradise.

But on the other hand its now possible to walk down kingsway and actually be able to breath. Which is nice. I used to work in the zone and could actually cycle to work in the mornings inhaling more carcinogens than I handled in a day in the lab.

I think the congestion is self limiting argument is just daft - if your idea of self limiting is "overcrowd it to the point of not being able to move then the other drivers will have to go somewhere else" then yes it is. On the other hand that makes everywhere bloody horrible.

And as for not being aware of it - unless I've missed them being taken down there are bloody big signs all over the place. Hell theres a sign in putney warning you about it and thats 4 miles out of the zone.

I agree about the penalty/payment system though - its really not well setup. In many ways i think its setup so you do get penalised rather than to make it easy to pay.

I dont think the west zone is a good idea though - too many people live inside it.

Gary
22-02-2005, 16:43:01
But on the other hand its now possible to walk down kingsway and actually be able to breath.

I'm sure that effect is nice (even though I never had a problem with it) but it's been achieved by penalising a section of society unfairly. That makes it wrong and thus a failure by that criteria.

I think the congestion is self limiting argument is just daft

It's not about "other drivers will move elsewhere" since no one relishes driving in London if they don't feel they need to. It's about moving businesses out of one area and spreading them across the country. It's about dropping the idea that there's kudos in having a Central London address, and realising that things like airports are outside the city anyway, so there's little point in being inside.

If it's "bloody horrible" then there's your reason to move your company elsewhere. And this can be encouraged further by incentives.

But ultimately no one should have to come up with a best option plan in order to be allowed to point out that an appalling plan is awful.

unless I've missed them being taken down there are bloody big signs all over the place

Sarcasm will get you everywhere :). Sure, and I know of a number of folk from outside London who believed they had avoided crossing into the zone, and had no intention of going in that far anyway, but who found later they'd fallen foul of it. Usually by trying to follow the signs to where they wanted (which should have been outside the zone).

Besides, it's just an obnoxious way to treat people, especially those likely to get lost on unfamiliar roads. Do you recall your first time trying to drive near London ? All the different lanes and you not knowing which to take ? Perhaps finding you are too late to change into the one you needed, as you find yourself going somewhere you didn't want to.

Remember also that drivers have already paid for all the roads many times over in road licence tax alone. No one has the moral right to charge a second time for the same thing, just because they have the power to do so.

I'm just glad I'm no longer in Ealing ;)

zmama
22-02-2005, 16:47:04
Morality and tax law???

You've got to be kidding :lol:

Funkodrom
22-02-2005, 16:47:22
"No one has the moral right to charge a second time for the same thing, just because they have the power to do so."

Why not? If people are prepared to pay for something then you can have whatever charging model you want. No-one's forcing people to drive and there are plenty of alternatives.

Cars are bad mmm'kay.

Gary
22-02-2005, 16:48:03
You've got to be kiddingOK, got me there :(

I just think they ought to be connected.

Funkodrom
22-02-2005, 16:49:15
Originally posted by zmama
Morality and tax law???

You've got to be kidding :lol:

That's what I thought.

If you can tax you can tax whatever you want, and if people don't like it they can elect someone else who'll change it or you can stand for election yourself on a platform to change it.

That's democracy.

If more people disagree with Gary than agree with him (which seems to be the case) then tough.

Gary
22-02-2005, 16:52:36
If I have to explain why not, then we clearly have different ideas re morality. I just happen to think it's wrong to force people to pay and pay and pay until the pips squeak, or you've forced them to do something you want and they don't.

We're not talking prevention of theft or murder or obvious basic stuff here, we're considering one group forcing another to do what the powerful group wants, just because they can.

It's probably why you can't see a problem.

Gary
22-02-2005, 16:57:17
That's democracy.

Not so. Democracy is to do with all the citizens who wish to, debating an issue, and coming to a majority decision.

It's nothing to do with having just the options of trying to get into politics yourself, knowing you've not a hope unless you get selected by one of the main parties and then do what you're told. Or trying to select a person to tell you what to do from a bunch who simply isn't interested in how you think, even thought hey are supposed to be your representative (ha ha bloody ha).

What you describe is what politicians want to convince the public is democracy. A situation where the citizen does as they're told, and has no voice.

Funkodrom
22-02-2005, 16:58:56
Surely there are more car owners than non-car owners in this country? (ok, I checked, there are 30 million cars or one for every two people).

And car ownership is a choice?

And the governments are voted for by this supposed weak group of car owners.

You're suggesting that businesses can't choose to be in London but need to be 'financially encouraged' to move to other parts of the country, but that's apparently ok whilst 'financially encouraging' people not to drive in London is 'morally wrong'.

It seems totally hypocritical to me.

The fact is we can't have everyone in the country driving their cars whenever they want because there isn't space.

And your moral argument is totally spurious.

zmama
22-02-2005, 17:00:01
Morality= his ox being gored

Venom
22-02-2005, 17:02:40
Suck it Gary. Suck it long and hard.

Gary
22-02-2005, 17:53:30
car ownership is a choice?

Up to a point. Many see it as a need to do their job. But let's suppose it is.


And the governments are voted for by this supposed weak group of car owners.

Folk have to vote for one or other of the inadequate options in our system, or else, having realised it's all pointless, choose not to.

You're suggesting that businesses can't choose to be in London but need to be 'financially encouraged' to move to other parts of the country, but that's apparently ok whilst 'financially encouraging' people not to drive in London is 'morally wrong'.

No so, any particular business can choose to be in London if they wish, but their staff will suffer as a result of the congestion, and the company should find that has a knock on effect on it too.

Besides it is the case that Ken is explicitly NOT financially encouraging folk to not drive in London but penalising them if they drive where they have already paid to drive.

There's is a huge chasm between giving someone a present and robbing them blind, and if that's not clear I'll do a deal with you. You can give me a nice present and I'll rob you blind, and then we're quits. :)

Taking that into consideration, is one right and the other wrong ? Absolutely. Can there be any reasonable doubt ?

It seems totally hypocritical to me.

Well I can't say I always follow other people's train of thought, but if you can find the slightest hint of hypocrisy in there, then the best of luck to you.

The fact is we can't have everyone in the country driving their cars whenever they want because there isn't space.

Why can't folk drive where they've paid to drive ? If you're not going to allow them to do that then your not entitled to take money off them in the form of road tax in the first place. Roads are not for the elite alone.

And your moral argument is totally spurious.

Untrue. All laws should be formed with consideration of morality, tax laws included, otherwise you have a corrupt authority failing to act in the interests of the citizens.

Funkodrom
22-02-2005, 18:58:10
Are you against parking meters?

Or paying for parking spaces?

Gary
22-02-2005, 22:12:03
Parking meters ? Yes of course. They're on the road we drivers have already paid for.

Parking spaces ? It depends. If on private property I can't presently see a problem, although I think anywhere that wants you to visit to get your custom has a damn cheek to ask for parking fees as well.

And I think that the council has a responsibility to serve local commerce (that they take tax off of) by providing sufficient parking, near those shopping areas, without charge, for the same reason.

Oerdin
22-02-2005, 22:26:38
This location fees don't solve any problems they just move the problems from one location to another. If the country feels they have to many cars then tax the hell out of cars to lower the number but don't have hidden charges were out of towners unknowningly get nailed or where other towns get forced to put up with London's traffic.

Funkodrom
23-02-2005, 09:42:02
We already do tax the hell out of cars through road tax, petrol tax (at levels which would make Americans riot) etc. It doesn't stop people driving. They are prepared to pay - which is their choice.

It has solved the inner city congestion problem.

It's not a hidden charge it's had massive national and even international publicity.

You don't have to pay on the evening or weekends, only during the working day.

Gary
23-02-2005, 11:30:01
So you're saying that because the British character doesn't tend to go in for riots, it's ok to push and push and push the boundaries for one section ? Or in this case tax and tax and tax ?

When one rules out such a reaction, it does not mean that one is really prepared to pay at all. What it means is that one doesn't see any other choice. With no reasonable alternative to driving in they're stuck with it. Besides, why should they be hit like that in an effort to force them to find an alternative, when what they want to do isn't wrong ? It's simply not what some others would like them to choose. If one wants to change a public behaviour that isn't wrong. the only justifiable method is with carrot, not with stick.

But those in power can oppress whoever they like with impurity. In that sense it's not so dissimilar to slaves being prepared to be beaten by their masters. They just have to grin and bear it.

It doesn't make things that are wrong, right, just because it's proved that one can get away with it. Besides, it's a strange sort of solution that pushes the problem into someone else's back yard, especially while creating such inequality of tax burden.

As I implied earlier, all it really is, is a car haters charter.

Funkodrom
23-02-2005, 11:32:52
"So you're saying that because the British character doesn't tend to go in for riots, it's ok to push and push and push the boundaries for one section ? Or in this case tax and tax and tax ?"

No it was a flippant quip about how high our fuel tax already is.

Those in power can tax whoever they want however they want - you can vote for people who'll do it differently.

Basically you're never going to agree with me that you're wrong so I'm going to stop arguing with you.