Pledge “no2roadcharging”
"I will write to my MP requesting they oppose road charging. but only if 400 other UK citizens will do the same."
— Steve Goodman (contact)
Deadline to sign up by: 11th July 2005
153 people signed up, 247 more were needed
Country: United Kingdom
More details
I oppose road charging because I believe it will
* Not work
* Eliminate our privacy
* Erode our freedom to make our own choices
* Make big business more money from supplying expensive, over complicated, and over budget IT systems
* Cause normally law-abiding people to want to break the law
* Not improve the lives of the people of the UK
Basically, I think the idea of road charging, via installing GPS-based tracking systems into cars is wrong.
I don't want the car I buy in 10 years time to have a GPS tracker device on it that tells the goverment where I am, what speed I'm doing and deciding how much I should pay simply to go to work in the morning.
I don't need the worry of accidentally going 72 miles per hour on the motorway when it's clear and getting 3 points on my licence and a fine. I'm a human being who can make up their own mind.
I don't trust the goverment to implement the charging fairly (I don't think as some roads become less congested they will lower prices accordingly, which will eventually lead to everywhere being expensive).
I don't think that it can be implemented without wasting lots and lots of tax-payers money. I've already seen public sector IT consultancies getting exited and I know why - it's going to make them billions.
I don't think the government understand the people of the UK, and realise we depend on cheap, reliable transport to fit everything into our busy lives.
I don't believe it's fair for the goverment to increase the cost of the automobile to make public transport seem cheaper.
I do believe the only way to reduce congestion in the UK is to improve public transport and dramatically lower it's cost.
If you agree with me please sign this pledge.
- donate $10 to Rep. Jenn Coffey and volunteer at least 5 hours of time to her 2010 re-election
- volunteer my time and energy to support keeping the branch libraries open for Evanston residents.
- contribute to the effort, "Give-a-Book: Help a Child Learn,"
- run at least 20 miles each week until April 5th,
See more pledges, and all about how PledgeBank works.
Things to do with this pledge
Comments on this pledge
Current signatories (
= they've done it)
Steve Goodman, the Pledge Creator, joined by:
- Garry Mitchell
- Gareth Bromley
- Dan Mathias
- Terran Brown
- David Goodchild
- Tom Martin
- Richard S. Spooner
- Ashley Berlin
- Chris Dackombe
- Nick
- Zander Mears
- Martin Martin
- Dan Wright
- Phil Norris
- lawrence pace
- Jeffrey Lake
- Liam Maddox
- John Wallace
- Pamela Hindley
- Andrew Anderson
- Rowland Penny
- Lee Jewell
- kris
- David Hallworth
- Ricky Cross
- Jennifer Twite
- Chris Williams
- AnthonyT
- Pat Crawford
- Robert Woolley
- Andrew Favell
- David Moore
- James Smith
- Ian Hearn
- Kris Hayward
- Ceri Davies
- Ian Sneyd
- Paul Herring
- Liz Johns
- Pauline Yates
- Jon Gardner
- Helena
- Ian Duggan
- Jim Campbell
- Matt Q
- Kerry Marriott
- Blane Bramble
- Dominic Evans
- Tim Draper
- Nick Luscombe
- Sarah Noakes
- Donald Walker
- JimJ
- Kate Martinson
- sian jones
- Christopher Carter
- Aaron Sweeney
- Peter Munro
- Samuel Collins
- Simon Holledge
- Colin Martin
- Michael Mounteney
- Danny Clifford
- Tim Hothersall
- Philip McAvoy
- Gavin Betts
- A. J. Moss
- Chris Wilson
- carl
- Chris Ward
- Heather Mailley
- Angelina
- Owen Price
- Keith Poole
- miles thomas
- William Palin
- Jason Pitchers
- Richard Bassett
- Lee Wallis
- Andrew Kerr
- Daniel
- Leigh Alderton
- Ashley Adams
- Ben Wood
- Paul
- John Krug
- phil mackey
- Dug Stokes
- Keith Blakemore-Noble
- Joe Blakey
- Oliver Coombes
- Tom
- verena lewis
- Chris Shore
- Chris Martin
- MOHMED
- Thomas Hancock
- Pete
- Chris Bridges
- james rowe
- Jason Hill
- Mike Dimmick
- John Beresford
- Giles Pepperell
- Tony Walton
- Neville Hawkins
- Paul Biggs
- T Wright
- Allan Dodds
- s hanstater
- Derek Reynolds
- mark starr
- Bruce van Biene
- Chris Burmajster
- Nick Morgan
- Damian Bryan Dickinson
- Avril Wooster
- Julian Brailsford
- Tristan MIlls
- Ethan Edwards
- Jo Youung
- Paul Foster
- Duane Phillips
- TJ Wilson
- James Blanchard
- Paul Bassett
- Andy Marchant
- Laura P
- David Lodge
- richard white
- Matthew Gaskin
- Anthony John Berrow
- Jan Hurst
- A. Guttenplan
- Adam Stiles
- Kevin Hughes
- simon leedham
- Sarah Nash
- Philip Cooke
- Alan Craggs
- Rod
- 12 people who did not want to give their names
I am not trying to lobby 'for the motorist who'll die before using a train' - I don't mind the idea of leaving a little earlier for work to use public transport, I just refuse (and can ill afford) to pay more to use a useless public transport system. Also I do believe that we, as motorists should pay the 'true cost' of using our vehicles.
If public transport was free, or nearly free, reliable, and regular, much people would use it.
Chris Lightfoot, this is against *any* which a) invades privacy, b) involves the goverment buying in more expensive IT systems that most likely will not do the job; and c) will make more people into criminals for opposing the system.
Invading our privacy on the pretense of a 'tax neutral' system (yeah right!) is a joke it's just a further add on to the ID card and a step closer to Big Brother!
I reckon it probably costs me, roughly 13p a mile on the country roads I drive on at the moment, and maybe 20p as I get closer into the city. Other roads, like the M6 in Birmingham (which I avoid on my way to work) would probably at the moment cost me around 80p in petrol per mile if im stuck in traffic at a standstill for an hour.
A multi-billion dollar system to simply extract an extra 50p in the busiest regions, and let people drive cheaply on the least congested roads makes no sense at all. That's of course assuming the system replaced fuel duty (ha ha)
Imagine if the money needed to implement this was put toward re-nationalising public transport and making it free!
Sometimes, sexy new technology isn't the answer. Sometimes, you have to do the hard work to improve the quality of the public transport service.
Madness....utter madness. How about I hand in my notice now and go on the dole....I drive a 50 mile round trip every day in the rush hour period, I struggle to afford to run a car now, what chance do i have?
Public transport? Are you having a laugh? It took my receptionist 2 and a half hours to get to work using public transport on the one day she was brave enough to risk it.....she lives quarter of a mile away from me.
Come on...Start treatng the motorist fairly...this country relies on its road system, to punish it more than it is already is, is patheic.
So, now the rich will drive wherever they want to and the poor will stay at home unable to travel to find or keep a job. Ah well, at least the government will know where the money is because they can track it.
How much farther right can the Labour party go?
.
1) Do you trust the government to make it tax neutral?
2) Do you think that a charging system that is the same regardless of income is taking the roads out of the hands of the less well off and putting it into the hands of the richer drivers?
3) Do you trust that the government with intimate knowledge of where you are and where you've been will not abuse it or leak it in any way now or at some point in the future?
4) Do you think motorists need to be charged more for road use?
5) Do you think the metro system in Newcastle is a model public transport system?
6) Do you think that the government is really serious and committed to improving public transport (particularly in cities)?
7) Do you think we should force politicians to use public transport (not including chauffers)?
There are now 36 million drivers, and 34 million cars. In the US they have already reached the stage where there are more cars than drivers, I assume we will catch up.
Driving around I reckon I see 90% of cars with just one driver.
So if congestion has got and is getting worse, there must be a lot of people who now can afford a car and commute in a car, whereas 10 years ago they either took public transport, or couldn't do that job at all. Surely we will reach the peak of this soon?
Commuter villages, out-of-town superstores - This country is now built around the car. For the government to suddenly 'overlook' the benefits to the economy of this, and charge us for the privilege of getting to work on time, is nuts.
As Jeffery Lake says above, just become something may be technically possible, it doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I cannot agree to this scheme with no plan to improve the transportation system.
Umm... yep, or move? Nowhere in law do you have the right to travel 50 miles in an hour everyday. It's a privilege to use the queens highway, not a right.
I live 10 miles from where I work, I live in a city, I work in a village, and I get the bus everyday. I've been doing it for 6 years.
I'll make a new pledge asking 400 UK citizens to write to their local MP IN FAVOUR of road charging.
Invading the privacy of a nation, limiting their movements and lowering the quality of their lives is not the solution to the problem of congestion.
Better, cheaper, public transport is. It's obvious to most people, perhaps Lee perhaps if you understood the public transport infrastucture is not up to scratch and over-priced in many places in the country you would not hold the same views?
http://www.transportdirect.info is a good website if you want to research just HOW BAD public transport is for most people outside the cities - in fact for many searches, it doesn't even list public transport as an option.
Every day I cross over the busiest road into town, clogged up by people who live in the surrounding small dormitory towns: no doubt this system would ensure I paid to subsidise their lifestyle choice. Moreover, this proposal has no green credentials whatsoever: I have heard a govt spokesperson claiming it would be possible to provide cheaper pricing for smaller cars but the computer system needed for this would be enormously expensive and a target for crime. I am opposing this proposal and asking the government to do the simple thing and replace the road fund licence with a green tax on fuel.
thats all that will happen if they bring this scheme in.
it will anger far too many people.
it is a senseless waste of time and money (so what is happening elsewhere that they don't want you to notice?).
as an average it seems as though its going to cost about a £1 per mile (mixing some mileage on each of the road types) this would cost me £174 to travel up to see my mother in law and another £174 to come back!!
so £348 round trip.
great for me, not so good for my wife!!!
absolutely un-workable.
i thought this was a government concerned with family!!!!!
now families will be even more isolated from each other!
and can't move closer to each other because of the housing shortages.
PRICING PER MILE TOTALLY UN-WORKABLE!!!
It's uneccessarily invasive and it's not going to help, environmentally - if it replaced fuel duty, it would cost little more to drive a 4mpg gas-guzzler than a more fuel-efficient car.
Second, Alistair Darling said the aim is not to reduce the number of people driving, but to spread them out.
Well, it SHOULD be about reducing the number of people driving cars daily (by car sharing and/or promoting alternatives, including better and cheaper public transport).
If the plan is as claimed, the aim is effectively to spread rush "hours" over longer periods - so instead of our roads being chock full of traffic for one hour in the morning, they'll be nearly-full of faster moving traffic for two hours (let's say). Not great for all the pedestrians and cyclists out there.
I was already planning to write to my MP and asking her to ask that fuel duty be raised instead to cover the removal of remove road tax. Simple, cheap to administer, and fair.
Oh my god! I've just realised I agree with Jeremy Clarkson about something!
I use buses around town, but I admit that on longer journeys I usually drive rather than get the train simply because it's so expensive. If it was cheaper I'd have no problems leaving my car at home; so I wouldn't be particularly bothered if they used increased road prices to fund better, cheaper transport - provided everyone charged on the road has an alternative to driving open to them.
I disagree that increasing road prices will fund better, cheaper public transport though. Surely this will only work, if nearly everyone continues to drive as normal - i.e. 10% less people drive, but it costs 10% more too drive.
However that said I am not crusading against a charge-per-se for using roads, I think that they need to go to the drawing board with this one in particular. From the original 1964 report into 'road charging' a much better one than the current GPS system seems to be increasing fuel duty around congested areas of cities to discourage use of the car where there already is a cheaper alternative.
I agree that if public transport was cheaper, I would use it more, though of course if a small percentage of road users decided to use it, the system would probably break as the rail network seems to be overloaded at the moment on many commuter trains.
http://www.pledgebank.com/freewheelers
Cheers Daniel
You think Prescott pays for the mileage on those Jags?
- Does NOT reduce the number of cars on the road
- Does NOT penalise those who drive less environmentally friendly cars
- Is horrifyingly invasive of privacy
Lucky you that you have convenient public transport - most don't. I cycle to work, my wife takes the train. Where we used to live I had to wake up at 5:30am in order to take a bus to work by 8:30am. By car I could leave at 8:00!
There are many ways to improve things, it's just that our government has chosen probably the worst possible option, a thinly veiled attempt to further the ID card citizen tracking agenda.
The main problem is that it will be used for statistics, be able to prosecute you for speeding (even where it's safe to do so) and of course it gives a much much more accurate position that a mobile phone does. Sorry Alan, but I don't even know what the "Hampstead millionare socialist brigade" is - so I assume you're one of the people that live in or near London and have a decent public transport system.
Secondly Alan, I am no paranoid internet consiracy theorist, I am a telematics profession who understands all the technical challenges of this system and has a good idea of how it would be implemented.
I am against this scheme and I have a solid view, and that is better and cheaper public transport.
I think you'll find the many that drive into the cities every day do so for simple reasons - the car is comfortable, reliable, cheap and 'feels safe'. Also, public transport seems to go in 'spokes' - if you want to get from the south east of a city to the south west, often you need to go into the centre first.
Firstly that the roads are a privelage to use not a right. Like a public privelage of way then? I guess I dont have to pay road tax if I'm not paying for the right to use the road too.
Secondly we should not just criticise this system but suggest an alternative? Where did you get that idea from. Congestion itself is a great deterrent that doesn't discriminate rich and poor. (Don't get me wrong I dont want congestion per se.) Your well paid councillor in a big luxury car will be just as stuck as Beverly the single parent sitting there in a Metro. I think that's a lot fairer and when powerful people are inconvenienced like this they are much more likely to bring about positive change that effects all of us.
I think allowing richer people more freedom on the roads at the cost of the every day guy's freedom is only something that richer people could possibly favour, unless we are truly a nation of masochists.
Thirdly, we should use a road charging system to improve public transport? Noble idea, but you REALLY expect that to happen? Public transport isn't even publically owned anymore, this suggestions is so full of holes it just doesn't hold water. I love the principle but without a radical change in our system of government I think it is a foolish fantasy to try and push it forward.
The same "argument" is used against speed cameras. If you don't like to be fined for breaking the law then don't break the law then the government's evil plan to tax you by the back door will fail. If you believe that a speed limit is inappropriate, get the limit changed.
Try to put yourself in the position of someone who lives on your commute to work. Imagine how much better their lives would be if the noise and pollution were reduced. Imagine how the lives of children would be improved if they could play in the street. They can't in my "quiet" suburban street because of the commuters driving at 50 mph to avoid the choked main road.
One arguement above that is actually almost offensive, is that using mobile phones means that you can be tracked anyway, so why object to this..... Well, the government didn't get the majority of the public votes, so why bother having elections? We're never going to meet millennium pledges so why bother trying?
Just because mobiles have led to a situations where we can be tracked does not mean that it's not scary, and definitely does not mean that further measures to track people should just be allowed. Everyone has the suffer in some way from congestion, either with longer trips or noise on their streets etc, but not everyone has an alternative because of the patchy public transport system. I've paid rise after rise in train fares because after the years of underinvestment, it was apparently needed to improve things. Now I just have to pay too much for trains that don't run on time. I agree with some of the sentiments above in that if you actually encourage more people into the crumbling public transport system then it will collapse. Surely the money for this stupid scheme could be spent trying to give the 'evil' motorists an alternative. (and maybe if the haulage system went back to the railways there would be 50% more space for cars on the motorway anyway?!)
The causes of this are many. The world has changed dramatically since the time up to the early 1960s when the majority of the population relied on walking, bicycles, buses or trains for their transport. Without getting into an exhaustive essay on the subject, some of the issues are as follows:
1) The idea of a job for life has long since disappeared. Successive Governments since the rise of Thatcher have told us that we must learn to be a more flexible work force and expect to have multiple careers durig our working life. So the old idea of living close to where you work is no longer as simple as it was, as it may result in you having to move house every few years.
2) In most families both partners now work, at least part time. Whilst moving house every few years to follow one persons latest job may be possible, if undesirable on the children, trying to find two jobs in the same location at the same time is going to prove more tricky.
3) Since the early 1980s the job market has become much more volatile. Whereas before that people would routinely relocate to follow their career, now the scourge of redundancy puts many people off. Do you really want to disrupt your life every few years for a new job, only to relocate, be made redundant, and find yourself on the move yet again. Not likely. So people are prepared to commute longer and longer distances to get to work, because they expect to move jobs within a few years anyway, form choice or due to redundancy.
4) Moving away from work, when I grew up in the 1960s most people in cities lived within easy walk of a whole range of shops - butcher, grocer, green grocer, baker, post office, bank, etc. All your regular needs were within easy walking distance. The rise of the supermarket has led to the closure of these local shops, with the result that many more people have to drive to do their shopping.
There are exceptions, and I know people who live without a car. But they have adapted their life to do this, and been prepared to accept the compromises. In reality we could not all make the same compromises because the combination of jobs, housing, shopping and leisure activities within easy walking/cycling/bus journeys is not possible. We would all be wanting to live in the same few streets that provide easy access to all these services.
So you cannot tackle transport in isolation. You have to look at the much bigger picture, and start with planning legislation. Whilst we continue to develop employment ans shopping on the outskirts of towns and cities, with little or no public transport connections, car use will continue to rise. We have to create a planning climate in which housing, employment, retail and leisure are integrated much better.
Then you get the really big challenge. How do you provide an economic climate in which job security returns, so that people can live close to where they work? The benefits for most people would be far more than just reduced use of their cars. I am sure I am not alone in believing that many people would actually prefer to know that their job is secure, that they can continue to work where they are, and they don't permanently live under the threat of redundancy.
It has taken about 50 years to move from a society based on walking, cycling and public transport, to the one we have today which is so reliant on the car. To turn back the clock on transport you must also turn back the clock on all the other changes that have occurred. To think you can do otherwise is misguided.
Unfortunately I don't see any political party, not even the Green Party, prepared to stand up and declare that this is what we have to do. So they continue to try and treat the symptoms not the cause and wonder why great plans often seem to fail.
So I oppose road charging because it is another attempt to put a sticking plaster over the real problem. It will hurt the poor more than it hurts the wealthy, because the wealthy can afford to pay, and are much more likely to be able to adjust their working day to avoid the rush hour. If they have to travel in peak hours on business their employer will pay.
I also believe it is a fundamental breach of civil liberty. If you tag the car you tag the driver, and whilst I have nothing particularly to hide I do not see why the Government should know every journey I make. We tag people as an alternative to a custodial sentence, and tagging cars is akin to making driving a criminal offence.
Because I don't like cars and the havoc they wreak on the planet, and I'm in favour of a road pricing system.
Ever gone 2mph over the limit four times in a journey. That's 72 on the motorway. If you did that with road-pricing, you'd lose your licence and probably your job.
And to those who say that speed kills, take a look at Germany. No speed limit and less road deaths than the UK. My view of how to deal with speed limits is the following:
Remove speed limits on all motorways. However, to be allowed to drive on the motorway, you will have to take a special motorway driving test (the current test includes no motorway driving). This test will include a large section on when is appropriate to use speed, and inappropriate use of speed (discretion of police officer) will still be a 3-point endorsable offence. Also, a motorway licence will be lost at 6 points not 12.
The minimum age to take the motorway test will be 21. Before this age, you will be limited to A and B roads (still with speed limits)
A blanket 20mph limit will be imposed in all residential areas.
Perhaps a good first step to ensuring this would be to ban the bus and train company bosses, and anyone else responsible for public transport, from owning cars. After all, in the olden days, an architect who designed a bridge would be expected to stand under it while a procession of fully-laden carts marched over it.
Here's an idea for a new law; 1% of the exhaust gas of every new car in this country should be pumped into the passenger compartment.
All charges against cars are good. I am delighted that this pledge has failed.
You have to remove the need to travel, not change the mode, if you are really to address global warming. So go back a few months and read what I said:
- Change the planning rules now, to revers the trends of the last 50 years
- encourage development of shops/work near where people live
- look at more home working to reduce need to travel to work
- etc, etc.
Tackle the cause not the effect. It will take 50 years to put it right, but thinking small will get us nowhere.
Actually I have to agree with what you say about increasing local services and working from home. However, I have to take issue with one statement that you make; "A full bus may be less poluting per passenger mile but a half empty one isn't."
Midibuses travel 8 miles on one gallon of diesel, and double deckers 5 miles. Supposing that what you mean by a "half empty" bus is one which is carrying only 10 passengers, then a double decker would deliver 50 passenger miles per gallon. That compares favourably to the fuel performance of a Vauxhaull Astra on the urban cycle: 34.4mpg. So your conclusion that "polution would increase" is false.
In actual fact, if most of the people who left their cars at home used the buses, then fuel consumption of buses per passenger mile would likely be even lower. And many people currently drive cars which are much less efficient than an Astra.
You say "Tackle the cause not the effect." I would say, let's tackle both!
What do you think of my suggestion that 1% of the exhaust gas of every new car in this country should be pumped into the passenger compartment?
(Source of fuel consumption figures: LowCVP - The LowCVP is a partnership of the automotive and fuel industries, Government, academia, NGOs and other stakeholders ; http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/)
People have to satnd up and say no! or there will be no self employed people in ten years time.