ForumGarden

I've voted against the road charging system that may be in place in the UK , I think we pay to much and to have a black box installed to track where you go so you get charge depending where you go .

Is this a good thing or not ?

For me and so many people a car in an essential item , for me its my family who will suffer , schools , shopping , visiting family members .

I not rich and just about afford to own a car and a careful driver too .

I mean its not like I could take the bus or train because they never run on time or never run at all , and if your lucky and got one they charge you sky high prices more then I would pay for my car in total .

Is they anyone who shears my views on this matter . :driving: Tell me if you don't shear my view and why ?



There is a link to vote against road charging if anyone is interested it will go strait to number 10 downing street who have set up this petition .

Just go on the 10 Downing Street website to Vote . only if you want to :-3







I

CrazyCruizChick;548415 wrote: I've voted against the road charging system that may be in place in the UK , I think we pay to much and to have a black box installed to track where you go so you get charge depending where you go .

Is this a good thing or not ?


It is a very very bad thing indeed, mainly from being an absolute affront

to our liberty.

That seems awfully invasive. How do they justify that versus rights of privacy?

Accountable;548488 wrote: That seems awfully invasive. How do they justify that versus rights of privacy?


"It won't be an invasion of privacy, we won't use it like that, honest".

Well, yes.



To sign the petition against this vile proposal, go to:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/



Might as well visit the "Scrap the ID cards" e-petition at:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/IDcards/

as well, if minded to.

That's what so many people don't get because they're short-sighted. Sure the guys in charge today may not abuse the privilege, but what of the next guy, or the next?



Freedom is just too precious to give up.

Thanks for putting the link up , oh and the ID one too

The tax that is now will be scraped though they said and this would be INSTEAD of that. I sorta agree but not with the black box, that is intrusive. None of anyones business where we go.

The ID card I agree with though sorry, too many 'visitors' here now.

We've sent you an email; before your signature is added to the petition you'll have to click the link in it.



Damn that is sneaky so we can't sign more than once unless we use a different email. lol

CrazyCruizChick;548415 wrote: I've voted against the road charging system that may be in place in the UK , I think we pay to much and to have a black box installed to track where you go so you get charge depending where you go .

Is this a good thing or not ?




To allow the government to monitor your movements in real time to the nearest 15 feet is not, and never will be, a good thing.

I've already voted in this poll - so have 1.4 million other people. Nett result? Nothing. It will be ignored as all of the other protests against this government have been ignored.

Oh no, I got carried away and found loads of petitions I agree with, been at it for ages. Here is one - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Religions/

we have 1356727 votes so far , and that's more then scrap speed cameras which reached 6964 we must keep voting against this unfair decision on this dreaded road tax .

There are an amazing amount! I am thinking of starting a couple on seatbelts and especially arresting people using mobiles while driving, that REALLY pisses me off.

I can understand mobile phones and seat belts , that's for your own safely but to charge us an amount to use the roads is so silly , we are a country who still believe in our freedom , that's means No Black Box to check where we are going and not paying for that service because we don't what it in the first place .

I know that this country will have to find a way to pay , that's understandable

But it would have to be fair for rich & poor .

Yeah they should buy me a car too. I've got a licence but can't afford a car. I may start one on that.

and what car do you think they should give away then , maybe you could win a proton 1.0 .

Lol Anything, I don't care but if I wasn't born here I'd get given one surely. :wah:

I'm liking your sense of humour maybe they can they stop all younger drivers making older drivers life's harder . :driving:

From the time you pass your test you should maybe put on probation for the first few years before you quillfire as a proper driver , thats the only thing I can think of from the top off my mind .

Dont think its fair to jugde all drivers as the same , and that is maybe a way to charge bad drivers from the good ?

what do you think?

CrazyCruizChick;549208 wrote: From the time you pass your test you should maybe put on probation for the first few years before you quillfire as a proper driver , thats the only thing I can think of from the top off my mind .

Dont think its fair to jugde all drivers as the same , and that is maybe a way to charge bad drivers from the good ?

what do you think?


You are on probation. 6 points or more within two years of passing your test means you

lose your licence, and have to re-apply for a provisional licence, re-take the test.

WRT "road charging", this is not simply about money, IMO, it's about control. If

it was just money, fuel tax could be raised by 300% or so!

Bill Sikes;549278 wrote: You are on probation. 6 points or more within two years of passing your test means you

lose your licence, and have to re-apply for a provisional licence, re-take the test.

WRT "road charging", this is not simply about money, IMO, it's about control. If

it was just money, fuel tax could be raised by 300% or so!


Thus earning the treasury billions instead of costing billions in infrastructure set-up costs.

I've heard that they may re-think the road charging system as so many people have voted against it .

Lets just wait and see I suppose :yh_whistl

Do any of ya'll communicate directly with your elected representative? Everybody gives it lip service here but very few actually do it.

Accountable;549571 wrote: Do any of ya'll communicate directly with your elected representative? Everybody gives it lip service here but very few actually do it.


The result of going to your MP to put your point of view on an upcoming vote in the house is that they follow the party whip anyway - why bother?

Bryn Mawr;549581 wrote: The result of going to your MP to put your point of view on an upcoming vote in the house is that they follow the party whip anyway - why bother?
Mm, same sentiments on this side of the pond. I always say, if you don't ask the answer is no. Silence means support.

Accountable;549589 wrote: Mm, same sentiments on this side of the pond. I always say, if you don't ask the answer is no. Silence means support.


Seeing your MP *is* silence - it is not recorded anywhere and never made public.

The only way we have of showing our disapproval is through public petitions and demonstrations and, as the anti-war protests showed, they count for diddly squat.

CrazyCruizChick;549480 wrote: I've heard that they may re-think the road charging system as so many people have voted against it .

Lets just wait and see I suppose yh_whistl


I doubt e-votes on that petition page will make any difference.



From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... oads19.xml



"Drivers face £600 bill for an in-car road pricing black box

Motorists face a potential bill of more than £600 to fit a black box needed to make a full pay-as-you-drive road pricing system work, Whitehall documents have revealed.

A blueprint drawn up by the Department for Transport showed it could cost £62 billion to set up and £8.6 billion a year to run.



Every motorist could end up paying nearly £300

just to cover the expense of collecting the charge



Every motorist could end up paying nearly £300 just to cover the expense of collecting the charge, according to the department's feasibility study. Details of the study emerged as the Prime Minister signalled his intention to press ahead with road pricing in the teeth of fierce opposition.

More than 1.5 million people have signed an online petition against the policy, which it describes as "sinister and wrong".

In a newspaper article yesterday, Mr Blair, who will be emailing everyone who signed the petition, said: "The focus on this issue that the e-petition has brought about will help improve our understanding of the problems and the realisation that there are no cost-free answers."

But critics continued to attack the scheme as it emerged that hundreds of law-abiding motorists had been monitored by police in London using congestion-charging technology.

It added to the fears of motoring and civil liberties groups about the routine monitoring of drivers under the proposed measures."





So, Tony wants to keep going, despite the costs to the UK, costs to drivers, and

opposition to the plan.



That nice Mr. Booker, writing in "The Sunday Telegraph", had this to say:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... book18.xml

A fiasco on this scale could be seen from space

As the Downing Street petition saying "no to road charging" breaks all records by soaring past the 1.5 million mark, one crucial factor gets overlooked. Our Transport Secretary, Douglas Alexander, may say he "welcomes a debate" on what, last May, he called his "personal priority", but he knows full well that in this respect we have little choice.

Regardless of how many people log on to the Downing Street website to say that they don't want it, we are committed to basing any road charging scheme on the EU's Galileo satellite system. The only trouble is that the EU is making such a shambles of it that it is highly unlikely to be in place before 2020, if they can get it to work at all.

The reason that Mr Alexander describes charging motorists for using the roads (at up to £1.34 a mile) as his "personal priority" is that three years ago Brussels issued EC directive 2004/52 on "the interoperability of electronic toll collection systems", to ensure that all the EU's planned road charging schemes are similar."



There's a bit more by C.B. in that article.

Accountable;549571 wrote: Do any of ya'll communicate directly with your elected representative? Everybody gives it lip service here but very few actually do it.


Telling them that they are a bunch of F(&*imnG UGFKLSD wVBNKrs has no effect whatsoever. Some of my countrymen are even driven to be quite impolite. We have a similar problem to the US in that govt has become divorced from the electorate and indeed reality.

Labour Party membership is half what it was in 1997 and the link with the unions has been broken with funding coming from big business instead. Talk about selling out.

One suggestion being put forward by a parliamentary commission investigating is that all funding from large donations be banned and parties only be funded by membership subscription. Personally i think it's a great idea but i can't see any of the parties going for it. Govt is there to control big business and make them toe the line if necessary not line up to get pocket money.

posted by Brynwyr

Seeing your MP *is* silence - it is not recorded anywhere and never made public.

The only way we have of showing our disapproval is through public petitions and demonstrations and, as the anti-war protests showed, they count for diddly squat.


Don't forget the ballot box. The tories thought they were in for life as well. Even dear old Maggie got her come uppance once it dawned on her loyal followers she was a liability. I reckon if TB hadn't said he was going they would have forced him out by now.

The scottish numpty house elections are in May and hopefully will put the cat amongst the pigeons.

It's a standing joke in scotland that if you put a monkey in a red suit they would get voted in in some areas. It's the NHS, the disbanding of the scottish regiments and the war in Iraq that exercise people. labour are taking their support in Scotland for granted but labour MSP's (also known as the labour mafia) seem worried about the westminster effect. that's why gordon brown er al ghave been banging on about the importance of the union. Gordon browns constituency is one of the more left wing and people are more politically aware than politicians give them credit for.

I live in hope he loses his seat.

gmc;554746 wrote: The scottish parliament elections for the numpty house


Oh, *stop*, gmc, I nearly fell off my chair when you said that! Numpty house. ROLF!

gmc;554746 wrote:

posted by Brynwyr



Don't forget the ballot box. The tories thought they were in for life as well. Even dear old Maggie got her come uppance once it dawned on her loyal followers she was a liability. I reckon if TB hadn't said he was going they would have forced him out by now.

The scottish numpty house elections are in May and hopefully will put the cat amongst the pigeons.




As I've said before, I'm a firm believer that we generally vote for the least bad at a general election (and I think that your comments about Maggie support this). We certainly do not vote for the individual standing in our constituancy (except in very occasional, atypical, occasions like Martin Bell or George Gallway last time) as (s)he is only the mouthpiece of the party.

Even where people do vote positively, they are voting for a package of policies and have no way of objecting to a single proposal or commenting on anything that comes up mid-term.

Bryn Mawr;554811 wrote: Even where people do vote positively, they are voting for a package of policies and have no way of objecting to a single proposal or commenting on anything that comes up mid-term.


It might be nice to go for a world first (perhaps), and have some sort of set-up

(perhaps something akin to the D. St. "e-petition site) with real clout.

Bill Sikes;554817 wrote: It might be nice to go for a world first (perhaps), and have some sort of set-up

(perhaps something akin to the D. St. "e-petition site) with real clout.


There are a couple of difficulties with that, the current site is totally open to abuse, although that could be fixed.

The main trouble is the openness of the electorate to manipulation. It's way too easy to pass skewed information (or even complete mis-information) to those who can be bothered to look into a subject and to use emotional arguments on those who aren't for any referendum / petition to truly reflect the opinion of the nation or its best interests.

Bryn Mawr;554841 wrote: There are a couple of difficulties with that, the current site is totally open to abuse, although that could be fixed.


Absolutely.... the technical possibilities exist now, and are very, very cheap

(compared to, for instance "road pricing").



Bryn Mawr;554841 wrote: The main trouble is the openness of the electorate to manipulation. It's way too easy to pass skewed information (or even complete mis-information) to those who can be bothered to look into a subject and to use emotional arguments on those who aren't for any referendum / petition to truly reflect the opinion of the nation or its best interests.


Skewed information (or even complete mis-information) is what we have now,

really, from various party political machines and others concerned. Ensuring that

people *must* vote would be a good step forward.

CrazyCruizChick;548801 wrote: Thanks for putting the link up , oh and the ID one too )


Over 1,700,000 signatures so far. Hazel Blears says Something Must Be Done

(but not to ignore this poll). The PM is to e-mail us tomorrow. I forsee hordes

of peeved anti-road-pricing-petition signatories.

Bill Sikes;555271 wrote: Over 1,700,000 signatures so far. Hazel Blears says Something Must Be Done

(but not to ignore this poll). The PM is to e-mail us tomorrow. I forsee hordes

of peeved anti-road-pricing-petition signatories.


I don't think his gonna scrap the road charging , for many people its just the idea of having to pay the £600 for that black satellite box that goes in the car and then still having to pay the road charges , that I think got people to vote in the first place .

Lets just wait and see what he or they come up with :sneaky:

The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.

This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.

It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.

That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.

But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.

One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.

Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.

Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.

But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.

One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.

A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.

Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.

That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.

It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.

I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.

Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.

Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.

We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair

crazygal;555881 wrote: The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.


I'm going to go through that when I've some time. It looks fairly bland at

first sight.

Heres some more info that came with the email .

Further information

Both the 10 Downing Street and Department for Transport websites offer much more information about road pricing.

This includes a range of independent viewpoints, both for and against.

You can also read the Eddington Report in full.

You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat on the No 10 website this Thursday.

There will be further opportunities in the coming months to get involved in the debate. You will receive one final e-mail from Downing Street to update you in due course.

If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optout@petitions.pm.gov.uk

Rather boring huh.

Bill Sikes;556023 wrote: I'm going to go through that when I've some time. It looks fairly bland at

first sight.


Tony Bliar wrote: I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.


No it's not, yes it is, prove it!

Why havn't I received mine yet?

Likwise, I'll go through it when I have time - and let's all flood the webchat with questions

Found this in my inbox today:-

From:

10 Downing Street

To: e-petition signatories

Received-On: Today 6:10 PM

Subject: E-petition: Response from the Prime Minister

More

Part 2 TEXT/HTML Save (13.40 KB)

Part 1 TEXT/PLAIN Save (8.84 KB)

E-petition: Response from the Prime Minister

The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.

This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.

It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.

That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.

But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.

One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.

Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.

Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.

But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.

One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.

A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.

Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.

That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.

It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.

I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.

Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.

Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.

We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair

Further information

Both the 10 Downing Street and Department for Transport websites offer much more information about road pricing.

This includes a range of independent viewpoints, both for and against.

You can also read the Eddington Report in full.

You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat on the No 10 website this Thursday.

There will be further opportunities in the coming months to get involved in the debate. You will receive one final e-mail from Downing Street to update you in due course.

If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optout@petitions.pm.gov.uk

______________________________



Check out the last paragraph though - it seems that don't like what we are telling them.:driving: :driving: :driving:

Bryn Mawr;556567 wrote:

Why havn't I received mine yet?


Perhaps because, appareently, e-mails are being sent out in tranches so as not

to crash the Downing St. machinery (smirk). They should take lessons from

"spammers". Oh no, perhaps I should not have said that...

Why did that email need to be posted again?:-2

Accountable;548488 wrote: That ("black boxes" in cars tracking movement to charge the driver for road use) seems awfully invasive. How do they justify that versus rights of privacy?


They're trying a new twist:

[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jse ... oads02.xml[/url]

######

"Motorists could be forced to pay £1.34 to drive a mile in city centres under a version of the controversial road pricing scheme now favoured by ministers.

The proposed charges: 2p a mile in the country; 4p to 9p in outer suburbs; 14p to 86p in inner suburbs and £1.34 in city centres

Drivers would pay more to use roads in towns than on rural lanes if the Government goes ahead with a plan to divide the country into a patchwork of zones.

(snip)

They believe the zonal system will allay privacy concerns raised by a plan in which each driver's car would be fitted with a tracking device.

Stephen Ladyman, the roads minister, said in a newspaper interview the zonal system would avoid the need for a complex system of varying prices for each street.

"All we would need to know is what zone you were in and whether you crossed into another," he said."

######



Well, the system will still track every movement of the car, won't it! No change at

all from the Big Brother perspective!!

"Road pricing trials could start next year"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... oads24.xml

A little waffly and journalistic-pot-boiler-ish, but it shows the tendency to continue regardless. Let each council implement the idea - "divide and conquer" - then make it general to the whole of the UK.

Bill Sikes;620305 wrote: "Road pricing trials could start next year"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... oads24.xml

A little waffly and journalistic-pot-boiler-ish, but it shows the tendency to continue regardless. Let each council implement the idea - "divide and conquer" - then make it general to the whole of the UK.


Edinburgh council tried to introduce congestion charging a little while ago spent millions planning for it. They made the mistake of having a referendum before finally proceeding with it and much to their evident surprise and the whole thing got kicked in to touch. Labour have since lost control of the council.

They do need to do something but road charging is probably the most unfair way.

Ban parking within a mile of any school and end the school run, make the little sods walk. Two problems solved with one easy move, traffic congestion and obesity in kids

CCC - Sorry I have not been to UK in a few years and I am not too good at keeping up with News. Is this Road Charging to replace Road Tax Disc or is it additional. What will the money be used for?

ThePheasant;620405 wrote: CCC - Sorry I have not been to UK in a few years and I am not too good at keeping up with News. Is this Road Charging to replace Road Tax Disc or is it additional. What will the money be used for?


It's in addition. What the money is used for is up to the councils. However people don't have to vote for it. Manchester are apparently introducing a £5 charge.

http://www.manchester.com/Manchester_Ne ... 55028.html

The irony is toll roads were originally done with because of the detrimental effect they were having on trade.