Black Box Recorder A coffin for privacy 450walker.co.uk says... But what the public forgets is they hate tax rises but a large proportion of the public drive cars. Even those that don't rely on people who *do*, and on other...
Mike Ross
What if it's Bush's or North Koreas's military that are running us. Or perhaps a coalition of North Korea, Iran and Syria?
On the subject of road pricing in general, below something from the Safespeed website:
Turk182
Road pricing is in the news again. Safe Speed has discovered critical flaws in the very principle of road pricing that render the entire megabuck system null and void.
Congestion SELF REGULATES.
The primary regulator of road is, and always will be journey time. If congestion increases some people don't have time to travel and congestion eases. If congestion reduces some people find that they do have time to travel and congestion increases.
The threats of gridlock are false. Suppose it took four hours to drive to work; what would you do? Sit in traffic for four hours? Of course not. You might change your job, move your house or make alternative travel arrangements, but one thing is certain - NO ONE will sit in such traffic every day. So there never will be gridlock.
They say that congestion costs business £20 billion per annum. Isn't that a congestion charge? Isn't it in the nature of business to control costs and maximise profits? If they could avoid the £20 billion costs then they would. How are they supposed to be 'more motivated' to manage the costs imposed by a congestion based road pricing charge? Countless thousands of businesses have already re-located away from congested town centres to other places with better road connections, and by doing so have REGULATED the costs that they suffer from congestion.
Road pricing is REGRESSIVE
Suppose we price the poorest drivers off the road - and that's what would happen on some busy routes. Immediately the roads are clearer and journeys take less long. Wealthier people who were time-constrained from using the roads soon take advantage of the improved conditions and congestion is restored to previous levels.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said:
"Congestion in London has been self-regulated for 30 years with just about zero traffic growth. Ken Livingstone's congestion charge has NOT reduced journey times or reduced the number of vehicle movements; although you do have to read Transport for London's self-congratulatory reports very carefully to find out!"
"Department for Transport policies are banely flawed across the board. It is the government department most likely to fail and is not fit for purpose."
Paul Smith investigated road pricing in 2004 after the House of Commons Transport Committee called for information. The memorandum is published here: Further arguments and data are available at the link.
About Safe Speed ================
The Safe Speed road safety campaign is primarily the work of engineer-turned road safety analyst Paul Smith.
Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 51, an advanced motorist and road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience, has carried out over 10,000 hours working on the campaign with well over 5,000 of those hours researching the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety. In addition to those 10,000 hours, Paul has funded to campaign to the tune of £10,000.
We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything carried out by any other organisation. Paul's surprising conclusion is that overall speed cameras make our roads more dangerous. Paul has identified and reported a number of major flaws and false buttumptions in the claims made for speed cameras, and the whole "speed kills" system of road safety.
The inescapable conclusion is that we should urgently return to the excellent road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the World in the first place. Far from saving lives, speed cameras are a dangerous distraction.
Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits or appropriate enforcement of motoring laws, but argues vigorously that automated speed enforcement is neither safe nor appropriate.
Safe Speed is very slimly funded by voluntary contributions to the web site. We are urgently seeking improved funding.
The Safe Speed web site contains more than 350,000 words of road safety analysis and information. We are seeking publishers for 'the book of the web site'.
It has turned out to be quite an amazing story and there are opportunities for journalists and broadcasters to explore how all this came about, what it means, and where road safety has gone so badly wrong.
www.safespeed.org.uk
