Oh look, Volume II already. Volume I is here;
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=32...9
================================================================
For the continued discussion of what, I have no doubt, will be a long-running topic.
As is our way with such things, each thread will be allowed to run to 100 notes at which point it will be closed, locked and restarted.
No previous volumes will be deleted and pointers to them will always exist in the current thread; this was always intended to remove the need for endless repetition but has always curiously failed to stop it occurring.
I see no reason why you should pursue a different path this time.
If if seems like a good idea later on, it may well be that this thread will be sub-divided. Until such time if you're looking for a thread on the subject that you think you've lost, here would almost certainly be the best place to start.
Equally, anything not on topic will be removed.
You may find it useful to reply to this note each time you start a slightly different slant with perhaps a different heading. However, that's mostly up to you because I'm quite sure I'm not going to be losing any sleep over its organisation.
Enjoy.
|
To reply to NoWheels post in volume 1, ANPR and SORN are only of use against those who have had the vehicles registered to them in the first place. The real illegals have nothing to fear unless they are unlucky enough to get a pull while driving.
All government agencies now have to justify their existance by producing results - on paper, that is. The normally law abiding majority are the easy targets.
|
This discussion seems to have "widened" somewhat - or is it just my computer?
{Now Sorted. Mark put too many === symbol thingies in. DD}
|
|
|
To reply to NoWheels post in volume 1, ANPR and SORN are only of use against those who have had the vehicles registered to them in the first place. The real illegals have nothing to fear unless they are unlucky enough to get a pull while driving.
If you're trying to clamp down on unregistered vehicles, those which were previously registered by the same owner will inevitably be the easiest catch. That's where SORN helps.
Of course that's the low-hanging fruit: but it's inevitable in any enforcement that the most determined evaders are the hardest catches.
It sems to me that ANPR systems are useful for the never-registered. Fixed ANPR cameras or mobile systems such as tinyurl.com/bz2zj can be used build up a record of the usage patterns of unregistered vehicles, which helps if a case ever comes to court. ("I only drove it this once, your honour". "No you didn't, we got you 4 times this week on ANPR cameras")
From what I can see, in-car ANPR systems such as tinyurl.com/7bft6 look like just the tool to catch the never-registered red-handed.
The normally law abiding majority are the easy targets.
Inevitably. But what would you prefer -- start with the easy targets and work on to the tougher ones, or have no enforcement at all? I don't see any other option.
|
|
|
|
If there are a million illegal drivers then congestion could be reduced by the magic 40% the dft were on about by just getting these parasites off the roads altogether leaving us honest folk alone. 1 million out of 20 million ish cars (allowing for DVLA figures to be wrong for the number of cars on the road) is around 4-5% of all vehicles which they said removing would reduce congestion by 40%.
If all cameras were turned into anpr devices then any unregistered cars could be kept an eye on and then collected at the police's convenience thus making it much harder to drive around in a car which wasn't registered as they'd be spotted continually rather than the once every couple of years which is the norm at the moment.
To adski.
I think the point is if you are at uni you should be living there not at home. Saves a fortune in commuting costs and it is much better to have an independent life rather than being tied to parents :-)
I reckon if everyone considered whether they really needed to commute huge distances to work and decided to change their lives so they didn't this scheme would never see the light of day as congestion would fall. If fewer people were prepared to commute daft distances then employment would be more stable as employers would have a smaller catchment area to work with so they'd realise quickly treating all their staff like dirt meant they had no staff rather than an endless supply of gullable people from further afield. The more mobility you have the more the job market becomes flexible ie short term. You reduce that mobility and employment starts to become a longer term prospect which makes living locally more easy.
teabelly
|
I think the point is if you are at uni you should be living there not at home. Saves a fortune in commuting costs and it is much better to have an independent life rather than being tied to parents :-)
With higher education costs as high as they are it sometimes makes sense to live at home if you can rather than live on campus/nearby.
I lived at (parental) home in London and really wanted to go to Uni in the North-West. I had to think long and hard about the extra costs involved. If I had stayed at home and gone to a London Uni, even accounting for travel fares it would have worked out a lot cheaper. Eventually I did go "up North" and never regretted it since - they were some of the best years of my life. The extra debt did take several years more to pay off!
|
Why are you all getting so wound up?
It's NOT going to happen!
This is a carefully timed excercise to test the waters so to speak, to test reaction of the electorate. In ten years time their will be different Government probably and definatly a different transport secetary.
It's unworkable, too expensive and too much of a vote loser so stop panicking!
|
|
|
teabelly,
I thought long and hard about whether to live at Uni or whether to commute. I decided on living at home for a number or reasons;
* I'm not missing out on much from the social side - I go out with my mates just the same.
* I am totally inept. Seriously. The last time I tired to use anything as advanced as the oven, I nearly blew the kitchen up.
* The only advantage to living at Uni would be the people. And given that I see them pretty much every day anyway...
* Everyone there bar one, (who must live in a cardboard box ordinarily) hates living there. Most have had to move out to houses anyway to free up halls which means a lot of them still need to commute in - although admittedly not as far as me.
* Living at Uni just 10 miles from home would hardly be the same as living at Uni 200 miles away from home.
Ironically though, those who live in the town actually take longer to get in. I just blast down the motorway and 10 minutes later, I'm there. They take about 20-30 minutes to get in.
If I knew then what I do now, I'd still live at home. The prospect of losing out on all that hot home cooked food is just too great.
--
Adam
|
Im starting to wonder if this isn't the usual Labour party trick of suggesting something outlandish, then when they tone it down everyone is relieved, ie something like introducing congestion charging into most town centres??
Like a few years back, it was released into the press a few days before a budget that petrol duty may rise up to 10p a litre, and when it rose "only" 4 or 5p, everyone is relieved and thinks its ok.
|
|
|
Adam....
MOTORING ! And in this specific case, Road Pricing.
|
Ok Ok!
Sorry - I knew I was straying a little there :-)
--
Adam
|
Basically, this scheme takes us back to the late 1800's,when your labourers lived within walking or cycling distance of their work, with only the well paid able to commute by train to the cities.
On a social scale the upheaval doesn't bear thinking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/30d07590976de39f4f9f9b6ae02e5986/26538e2a2b1174ccef363390300a6c9b.jpg)
