"roger_millin" <[email protected]> wrote: >Adrian replied: >> The preferred approach is actually to reuire minimum changes to >> infrastructure. The required equipment would almost all be on board >> the vehicles, which would be built with it already in place. > >That would only work if on-board Sat Nav (which I presume is what you're >talking about) was accurate enough to make the positioning of the taxi >foolproof
No. There are systems (e.g. the ADEPT project one) which work by having on-board equipment that keeps track of the average speed of the car. If that drops below a set speed for more than a set length of time (or if the car stops more than a set number of times in a set period or distance), a unit of congestion charge is levied against the car. Such a system requires no SatNav (or, indeed, any other method of determining the car's location) at all. And it's relatively inexpensive. "Bru" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Poorer people generally don't drive, so they will be little affected >> by road pricing. > >I won't quote masses of stats (tempting though it is ... the relevant link >is http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2008/contents.asp ) but there are >about 5.6 million adults in the UK below the poverty line Er, I think you'll find that uses the nonsensical concept of *relative* poverty line, under which someone with only one TV is deemed to be poor if everyone else has two. There are indeed truly poor people in UK (e.g. without enough to eat), but fortunately not that many. >"Poorer people" generally DO drive, By "poorer", I mean those who can't afford a car. There are lots of those. >Try doing the weekly shop for a family of five by bus. It's not an option >when either you're home or the cheaper supermarkets is not on a bus route. Which is why you sometimes see the apparently-bizarre situation of poor people taking taxis to get their groceries home. I used to see it frequently when I worked at a supermarket. And, sad to say, poorer people do indeed often live too far from cheaper supermarkets to use them, and so fall prey to over-priced local shops. >Try getting to work by any other means that a car when the only job you can >get is working shifts with weekend work included in a warehouse built beside >a motorway junction miles from the nearest large population centre. This is a long-known contributor to unemployment. The fact remains that poorer people frequently can't afford, and therefore don't have, cars. >very few people outside of London, and perhaps one or two other major cities, >are making >significant numbers of avoidable journeys. I think you need to reconsider the definition of "avoidable" that you are using. >Road pricing as a replacement for fuel duty is a daft idea too. > >Fuel duty is actually a very logical method of collecting income from >motorists. But it has the fatal flaw of not varying with the road you drive on. To cure congestion, it is essential that the price/km to the driver be much higher on congested roads. Fuel duty cannot do that. >However, if the cost of the journey from A to B was going to be the same in >either vehicle, I'd be back to having a Rangie like a shot. Ah, but just wait until the oil price goes over $140/barrel again, and carbon charging is adopted. >You simply cannot solve problems like this through simple market economics. And, as you have shown, you can't solve them without it. >For starters, try to grasp the fundamental difference between an essential >good or service and a luxury one and then realise that for most of the >population a car, and most of the journeys made in that car, fall into the >first group. Rubbish. "Essential" things include food, water, shelter, clothing, medical care. You can't live without those. You can live without a car. >Trying to price people off the roads just will not work as a sustainable >long term solution. Why not? Almost everything else in society works that way. The problem is that road travel is effectively being subsidised by being provided at below the market price, and using a daft pricing method. As a result, we are collectively travelling much more than is sensible. At the market price (of anything) some people decide not to buy. That isn't being "priced off", it's simply how a market economy works. Hey, I just realised I've been "priced off" buying a Porsche! I must write to my MP. >Automatic Number Plate Recognition > >Camera gets a shot of a number plate, computer recognises the number (9 >times out of 10), number is checked against the PNC (oops, another TLA ... >damn, three letter acronym ... er, PNC = Police National Computer), and any >"hits" are alerted to the operator > >Hits include no tax, no insurance and no MOT. They also could be unpaid >parking tickets, an outstanding warrant against a known user of the vehicle >etc. > >ANPR is also increasingly used by fuel forecourts in an effort to combat >fuel theft. In this case, the system isn't linked to the PNC (as yet - I >think it would be a cunning move if untaxed, uninsured vehicles were unable >to fill up with petrol) but to a database of numbers previously involved in >a drive-off without paying The civil liberty / privacy implications of such univeral surveillance are truly dreadful. What will you suggest next? That every human have an implanted RFID chip? That a serial number be tatooed on everyone's forehead? I'd much rather behaviour be controlled by the market, than by the state. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
