The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

1…99100102104105…187

Comments

  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,540
    Meanwhile, in Bath...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-66608299

    A city's air quality has improved following the introduction of a Clean Air Zone (CAZ).

    In March 2021, Bath became the first city outside London to introduce a CAZ.

    Now a report published by Bath and North East Somerset Council shows a 26% reduction in nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant from vehicle exhausts, since its introduction.

    Air tested by all 65 of the council's Bath monitoring stations now meets legal standards.

    Before the CAZ was introduced, illegal levels of pollution were recorded at 12 places across the city.

    When driving through the zone, non-compliant taxis and vans must pay £9, while the charge for lorries and buses is £100. Private cars are exempt.


    Cars next?
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,760
    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

    Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

    Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

    Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

    In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
    If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

    Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
    It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

    Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

    I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
    See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.
    Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.
    It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?
    Yes. I think it's good if drivers look out of their windows. And that pedestrians don't run into the road in front of cars.
    It would seem obvious, but the message we seem to get is that those things don't matter as long as motorists stay below the posted speed limit.
    Apart from the campaigns around drink driving, drug driving, phone driving, not driving while tired, road safety for schoolkids etc.
    Which aspect do you think gets the most focus and investment?
    I hope it's speeding, because that is the largest contributing factor. Got the figures?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,760
    I genuinely don't understand, if speed cameras are such a great way of making easy money, why aren't there ten times as many? Currently this war on motorists feels very half hearted.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,613
    kingstongraham said:

    I genuinely don't understand, if speed cameras are such a great way of making easy money, why aren't there ten times as many? Currently this war on motorists feels very half hearted.

    Looks like we are one of the world leaders I speed cameras:
    The UK's roads are home to around 7,000 speed cameras – the fourth highest amount in the world, beaten only by Russia, Italy, and Brazil. 27 Apr 2022

    I would think that the relevant authorities recognise the likely reaction of the public/electorate to making that 70,000.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,659
    If you’re not speeding why do you care about speed cameras?
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,613
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

    Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

    Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

    Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

    In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
    If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

    Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
    It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

    Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

    I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
    See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.
    Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.
    It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?
    Yes. I think it's good if drivers look out of their windows. And that pedestrians don't run into the road in front of cars.
    It would seem obvious, but the message we seem to get is that those things don't matter as long as motorists stay below the posted speed limit.
    Apart from the campaigns around drink driving, drug driving, phone driving, not driving while tired, road safety for schoolkids etc.
    Which aspect do you think gets the most focus and investment?
    I hope it's speeding, because that is the largest contributing factor. Got the figures?
    A quick Google says that excessive speed accounts for 13% of collisions.

    Whereas (Quote): "The leading cause of collisions is due to errors or incorrect reactions from drivers as it accounts for 64% of incidents"

    So it's not speeding. Not even close.

    Thoughts?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,659
    Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,613
    rick_chasey said:

    Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.

    So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,160
    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

    Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

    Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

    Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

    In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
    If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

    Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
    It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

    Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

    I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
    See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.
    Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.
    It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?
    Yes. I think it's good if drivers look out of their windows. And that pedestrians don't run into the road in front of cars.
    It would seem obvious, but the message we seem to get is that those things don't matter as long as motorists stay below the posted speed limit.
    Apart from the campaigns around drink driving, drug driving, phone driving, not driving while tired, road safety for schoolkids etc.
    Which aspect do you think gets the most focus and investment?
    I hope it's speeding, because that is the largest contributing factor. Got the figures?
    A quick Google says that excessive speed accounts for 13% of collisions.

    Whereas (Quote): "The leading cause of collisions is due to errors or incorrect reactions from drivers as it accounts for 64% of incidents"

    So it's not speeding. Not even close.

    Thoughts?
    Errors or incorrect reactions are easier to correct the slower you are driving.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,613
    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

    Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

    Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

    Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

    In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
    If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

    Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
    It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

    Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

    I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
    See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.
    Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.
    It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?
    Yes. I think it's good if drivers look out of their windows. And that pedestrians don't run into the road in front of cars.
    It would seem obvious, but the message we seem to get is that those things don't matter as long as motorists stay below the posted speed limit.
    Apart from the campaigns around drink driving, drug driving, phone driving, not driving while tired, road safety for schoolkids etc.
    Which aspect do you think gets the most focus and investment?
    I hope it's speeding, because that is the largest contributing factor. Got the figures?
    A quick Google says that excessive speed accounts for 13% of collisions.

    Whereas (Quote): "The leading cause of collisions is due to errors or incorrect reactions from drivers as it accounts for 64% of incidents"

    So it's not speeding. Not even close.

    Thoughts?
    Errors or incorrect reactions are easier to correct the slower you are driving.
    It shows that KGs claim that speed is the largest contributing factor is incorrect.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,536
    Distraction from having kids in the car as well as family arguments cause accidents. It would therefore seem sensible to ban close family members from travelling together.

    Also, over familiarity with the roads tend to lead to overconfidence and crashes. Therefore, people shouldn't be allowed to drive anywhere near their home or work.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,700
    E = MV^2

    It's the V^2 part that's an issue.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,536
    First.Aspect said:

    E = MV^2

    It's the V^2 part that's an issue.

    At a fixed speed limit the M has an impact too.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,093
    Stevo_666 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    briantrumpet said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Is the summary of the current debate that speed doesn't kill dangerous people do? Sounds familiar.


    Actually, in the case of cars, the way to stop cars is with more cars. They won't be able to move anywhere if there are enough.
    That makes sense, but I thought there was an additional theory that congestion could be solved by other people driving less.
    The current restrictions and future regs appear to be designed to do that by pricing less well off motorists off the roads.
    Can't understand why you are therefore not in favour of it, 🙂
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,093
    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

    Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

    Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

    Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

    In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
    If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

    Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
    It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

    Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

    I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
    See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.
    Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.
    It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?
    Yes. I think it's good if drivers look out of their windows. And that pedestrians don't run into the road in front of cars.
    It would seem obvious, but the message we seem to get is that those things don't matter as long as motorists stay below the posted speed limit.
    Apart from the campaigns around drink driving, drug driving, phone driving, not driving while tired, road safety for schoolkids etc.
    Which aspect do you think gets the most focus and investment?
    It's blindingly obvious that speed is more tightly enforced because it is cheap and easy to do so. Until you can find a way of cheaply enforcing driving too closely, driving while using a phone, driving while eating breakfast and all the other things you might group under 'due care and attention'. That's not going to change.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,760
    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

    Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

    Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

    Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

    In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
    If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

    Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
    It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

    Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

    I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
    See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.
    Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.
    It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?
    Yes. I think it's good if drivers look out of their windows. And that pedestrians don't run into the road in front of cars.
    It would seem obvious, but the message we seem to get is that those things don't matter as long as motorists stay below the posted speed limit.
    Apart from the campaigns around drink driving, drug driving, phone driving, not driving while tired, road safety for schoolkids etc.
    Which aspect do you think gets the most focus and investment?
    I hope it's speeding, because that is the largest contributing factor. Got the figures?
    A quick Google says that excessive speed accounts for 13% of collisions.

    Whereas (Quote): "The leading cause of collisions is due to errors or incorrect reactions from drivers as it accounts for 64% of incidents"

    So it's not speeding. Not even close.

    Thoughts?
    https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/358022/speeding-be-recorded-cause-many-more-car-accidents
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,540
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

    Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

    Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

    Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

    In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.
    If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

    Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?
    It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

    Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

    I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.
    See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.
    Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.
    It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?
    Yes. I think it's good if drivers look out of their windows. And that pedestrians don't run into the road in front of cars.
    It would seem obvious, but the message we seem to get is that those things don't matter as long as motorists stay below the posted speed limit.
    Apart from the campaigns around drink driving, drug driving, phone driving, not driving while tired, road safety for schoolkids etc.
    Which aspect do you think gets the most focus and investment?
    I hope it's speeding, because that is the largest contributing factor. Got the figures?
    A quick Google says that excessive speed accounts for 13% of collisions.

    Whereas (Quote): "The leading cause of collisions is due to errors or incorrect reactions from drivers as it accounts for 64% of incidents"

    So it's not speeding. Not even close.

    Thoughts?
    https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/358022/speeding-be-recorded-cause-many-more-car-accidents

    Pfft, 15%/65% is within the margin of error, surely?
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,613
    TheBigBean said:

    Distraction from having kids in the car as well as family arguments cause accidents. It would therefore seem sensible to ban close family members from travelling together.

    Also, over familiarity with the roads tend to lead to overconfidence and crashes. Therefore, people shouldn't be allowed to drive anywhere near their home or work.

    If nobody drove there would be no car crashes or cars hitting pedestrians. We should be all car driving now, clearly.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,760
    None of the crashes at 30mph in zones that are now 20mph would have speeding as a contributory factor.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,760
    Maybe to prove it's not a cash grab they should go straight to a ban?
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,700
    TheBigBean said:

    First.Aspect said:

    E = MV^2

    It's the V^2 part that's an issue.

    At a fixed speed limit the M has an impact too.
    Yup. I think my car feels like a tank. 1750kg. Evs are well north of 2t if yummymummy wants an elevated driving position, more like 2.5.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,540
    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    First.Aspect said:

    E = MV^2

    It's the V^2 part that's an issue.

    At a fixed speed limit the M has an impact too.
    Yup. I think my car feels like a tank. 1750kg. Evs are well north of 2t if yummymummy wants an elevated driving position, more like 2.5.

    I once tried explaining to a petrolhead why I was happier scooting past his car at 20mph with inches to spare than him coming past me at 20mph with inches to spare...
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,659
    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.

    So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?
    I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.

    Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,760
    edited August 2023


    What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,536
    kingstongraham said:



    What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.

    Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,760
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:



    What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.

    Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.
    Locally, London can use the ulez cameras for toll charging at specific times. That wouldn't replace fuel tax though.

    Nationally if it was based on the mileage at mot (or a new check for new cars), what's the concern?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,974
    kingstongraham said:


    What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.

    It is inevitable given the loss of revenue through VED and fuel duty.
    Certainly from 2030 or so.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,536
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:



    What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.

    Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.
    Locally, London can use the ulez cameras for toll charging at specific times. That wouldn't replace fuel tax though.

    Nationally if it was based on the mileage at mot (or a new check for new cars), what's the concern?
    If it works as you describe, like an electricity meter, then it might work. Temptation for trackers will be strong though - who wants to pay for usage abroad or on private land?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,974
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:



    What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.

    Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.
    Why?
    I ask as the vast majority are quite happy not only to carry a mobile phone everywhere but some also post their locations on social media.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,537
    pblakeney said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:



    What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.

    Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.
    Why?
    I ask as the vast majority are quite happy not only to carry a mobile phone everywhere but some also post their locations on social media.
    I think people don't quite think about mobile phone tracking on the same way, and similarly with social media, they either don't think, or only share with a purposely chosen few.

    Government using GPS to track cars would have been interesting during lockdown.

Categories