Slightly off topic, but our local council wants to charge residents parking permits in relation to car length as a means to cut pollution.......
I wonder what they were drinking at the time of that idea?
A brand new 1.6 VW Passat would cost more than a 15 year old 2litre Golf.....I wonder which pumps out the most nasties?
|
> It's a con. Public transport runs at capacity in peak time - even a 1% shift from road to rail or bus would make the system fall over.
I hate to be political, but this is yet another example of Maggie's legacy. In many if not most cities in the UK up until the 1980s we had a municipally-run integrated public transport system, which could be planned and expanded as the need required. Excellent services such as the Tyneside Metro, which were run by Tyne & Wear PTE could be linked up with the bus services and the local BR rail services. It wasn't perfect but it could be controlled.
This was all torn down by the deregulation, leading to farcical episodes like the Darlington bus wars and finally to a fragmented and uncontrolled public transport system. This may have saved some money in the short term, but it has led to a system that cannot be controlled.
If the local/national government so desired to pump the tax from car usage to the public transport system in order to reduce congestion, this is no longer possible, thanks to deregulation -- which leads to the perfectly understandable position of the average British driver that people are out to get them with increased charges -- because essentially they are being victimised.
It should not be this way -- most other civilised countries have this simple equation sussed, ironically modelling a lot of it on the state-regulated systems we pioneered in the first place.
You reap what you sow -- and this country is certainly reaping.
|
When "pay as you drive" road pricing is introduced, I'm on the first plane out of this country. I can put up with people watching me on cameras and knowing my personal details, but when they start tracking where I drive and billing me for the privilege, that's me out. It may well be Maggie's legacy, but this so-called Labour government is making things worse.
I'd vote for a government that, transparently and honestly, took more tax out of my income, in favour of mortgaging the NHS to private companies, replacing traffic policemen with yellow boxes, and putting a huge premium on essentials which are deemed by the few to be "harmful" to the environment. But, that's not likely to happen - politicians tend to be wind-powered.
|
How will they ever police this,given the dire heritage of past IT projects.
False number plates and a bit of tin foil should do the trick !
Not that I would advocate such a crime :-0
|
Well, the technology already works. They only need to make it so that 95-99% of the population comply, whether they are trying to circumvent the system or not.
I would expect that most people would just accept it, a few would try to by-pass it or fool it and fail and fewer still will actually find a way round it or disable it without getting caught. Would it be worth the risk of the fines and criminal records however? :(
|
How does the technology work ?
|
"How does the technology work?"
Take a deep breath...
You can use a combination of GPS receiver and mobile phone technology. The GPS will record the location of the vehicle, the mobile phone sends regular updates (it doesn't need a constant connection) to a control database telling the government a) where you are, b) how fast you are traveling and c) your direction of travel.
The central database therefore knows which road you were on (and so how much to charge), how long you spent on it and how fast you traveled at different points (relative to the speed limit) and time spent along the total journey.
The GPS units are surprisingly accurate. It's not like sat-nav where the system might not know which road you're on - all the GPS needs to record are your co-ordinates, which it does very well. The central database can then work out where you are from those co-ordinates.
If you pass into a tunnel, the signal would be lost, but it would be obvious from the road you're on and direction of travel where you are, and a simple matter to work out where you've been once the signal is restored. More advanced GPS units employ sensors to record the direction and speed of movement when signals are lost, so that you're still being watched and then compliment this data with the information from the GPS receiver itself.
It's really not that complicated, the hardware is there and has been trialled already. The database hasn't got to manage particularly complicated information, only keep track of your current status and total charges incurred so-far, the complete record of every journey in detail would probably be archived continuously away for further inspection by the Police if required.
If you think the IT side couldn't handle it, then think again. Yes there is a lot of data generated, but it would be managed by several large data centres, breaking up the many different feeds from the mobile network. Also, the mobile units in the car would only broadcast accumulated data at certain intervals, so that the actual amount of data to process centrally at any one time would be quite manageable. If all 30 million or so vehicles move around all day long, you'd generate a few hundred million start of road, end of road (with time stamps) events per day for the detailed journey records - no big deal. The activate database for billing would only deal with 30 million records, updated a few hundred times a day, nothing major for IT these days.
The amount of data is large but not unmanageable. Ask the phone networks about how they know exactly where, when, how long and how much each of the millions of phone calls made on their networks daily are recorded. If they can do with IT systems that date from the mid-90s, imagine what you can do these days.
As for trying to "fool" the system, there's a new network of ANPR cameras (automatic number plate recognition) being deployed right now. ANPR will be used to detect tax and insurance evasion, possibly speeding too. If you get picked up by that (you will do, it's going to have coverage for all major roads) but are not transmitting data from your in-car tracker then they've got you right there and then. It doesn't matter how clever you are, the system would know you've disabled the tracking device by the absence of data retrieved at the time of scanning via ANPR.
The only true way around will be by not registering the car in your real name or address on your car. I'm sure people will do that, but not the vast majority of us who don't want to live as criminals, no matter how much we might detest the road charging scheme - most of us have too much too lose.
You can easily imagine though, in a few years the tracking technology will be so integrated with the car's electronics, that not having a valid payment account (that's paid up to date) with the DVLA with result in the car refusing to start. You read it here folks. You may try to cling on to reports about teething troubles in various trials, but technology never stands still, the bugs will be ironed out and the working system will be here far quicker than you might expect.
|
|
|
|
I'd vote for a government that, transparently and honestly, took more tax out of my income, in favour of mortgaging the NHS to private companies, replacing traffic policemen with yellow boxes, and putting a huge premium on essentials which are deemed by the few to be "harmful" to the environment.
Very well put, and you can bet your bottom dollar "the environment" and "climate change" will be the major guilt trip / excuse laid on by the government to force us into accepting this technology.
I have read some very strong evidence against the theory of CO2 triggered global warming this week. I read that about 30 million years ago, according to fossil records there was both a 30x higher concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, and an Ice Age occurring at the same time. Why is this not trumpeted all over the nightly news in the same way that the latest doom stories are whenever Greenpeace or one of the other lot come up with their latest depressing statistics. Did you also know that there are glaciers in Greenland that are currently advancing, and while land temperatures have increased worryingly in the past few decades, atmospheric temperatures show no perceptible warming increase in the last 100 years? A bit odd for what is supposed to be an atmospheric phenomenon, surely.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you'd have to be stupid to miss the link between this, the one-sided reporting of the theories and facts, and the government's enthusiasm for the revenue raising potential (of which road pricing is just one), that surrounds this theory, combined with a lack of real drive to do anything constructive about it that doesn't involve extorting more money from the public. There are other, revenue neutral ways to combat congestion that would be quicker and easier to implement that simply don't even enter the equation. Why not?
I tend to agree with you - I would look very seriously at emigration when/if this comes into force. I don't want to be tracked, and I don't want to be forced into quitting my job because I can't afford to get there, when the excuse for it is science which is devoid of two-sided debate, and whose dissenters are shouted down and publicly discredited by what can only be described as an increasing number of self interested environmental fascists.
Rant over!
Cheers
DP
|
DP, I'm not defending the government for a second - I'm quite cynical about politicians of all colours - but feel obliged to ask if you have read into the evidence supporting the theories of human-accelerated climate change with the same enthusiasm and acceptance as you did the arguments against it.
"I read that about 30 million years ago, according to fossil records there was both a 30x higher concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, and an Ice Age occurring at the same time. "
Sure - but was life as we know it flourishing under those conditions? Of course the climate of the planet has fluctuated significantly ever since it had an atmosphere. There was also a time when the earth's surface was volcanic and the air full of sulphur. The period you mention (30 million years ago) was also a time when Antarctica was still tropical. Just because "the earth used to be like this" doesn't mean that a return to any previous phase of climatic conditions won't be problematic for us and the generation coming after us - especially when the speed of the climatic change today is so much faster than the evidence would suggest would have been the norm on a geological scale. The issue is not change per se, but the comparitively high rate of that change and our (meaning humans and the rest of the planet's species) capacity for adapting to its effects on how we live/survive.
"Did you also know that there are glaciers in Greenland that are currently advancing, ..."
Can you provide a link to back this up? I'd be interested in reading it. Unless you mean that the melt water is advancing towards the sea, contributing to rising sea levels. National Geographic carried an article earlier this year about this happening in Greenland, I'm sure you could find it through Google. The same risk applies to the ice covering Antarctica - more than a third of the ice is currently lying on solid ground. As it melts into the sea, then sea levels around the world rise. But this isn't something that happens constantly - glaciers lose massive amounts of ice in summer and gain massive amounts in winter. The problem is that overall, the rate of replenishment is no longer keeping up with the rate of depletion.
"... and while land temperatures have increased worryingly in the past few decades, atmospheric temperatures show no perceptible warming increase in the last 100 years? A bit odd for what is supposed to be an atmospheric phenomenon, surely."
It's the temperatures at ground level which affect whether or not glacier ice will melt faster in summer than it can be replenished in winter. Average temperatures only have to rise (or rather continue rising) by a few degrees for significant alterations to occur. Over the twentieth century, average temperatures rose between half and one degree , and the hottest decade of the same century was the last one. On a related topic, I'd encourage you to look into the effects of rises in oceanic temperature, as well as increasing oceanic acidity.
"I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you'd have to be stupid to miss the link between this, the one-sided reporting of the theories and facts, and the government's enthusiasm for the revenue raising potential ... combined with a lack of real drive to do anything constructive about it ... There are other, revenue neutral ways to combat congestion that would be quicker and easier to implement that simply don't even enter the equation .... I don't want to be tracked, and I don't want to be forced into quitting my job because I can't afford to get there, when the excuse for it is science which is devoid of two-sided debate, and whose dissenters are shouted down and publicly discredited by what can only be described as an increasing number of self interested environmental fascists."
Apart from the "one-sided reporting/devoid of two-sided debate" bit, I agree with a lot of this. However I'm not sure what the term "self interested environmental fascists" actually means. It may do no harm to look into the backgrounds of the more vociferous "dissenters" and ask what's in it for them, or at least what's in it for the people who fund them. Speaking personally, I have an interest in and concern for the world around me, including the people who live in it. I try to live in a way that reflects my views, eg by using as little fossil fuel as I can, by avoiding the use of unnecessary packaging, recycling what I can, etc etc etc. Does that make me an environmental fascist or tree hugger (whatever that means)? For the record, I don't believe that living sustainably entails a miserabilist return to a pre-industrial revolution standard of living. And I do believe people should think for themselves and consider as much of the available evidence as they can in order to make up their own minds.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
Hi andymc,
I simply read an article which played devils advocate. It made the point that while there is evidence to support the claims, there is also evidence which doesn't fit in with the patterns at all, and which cannot be explained in the context of the current man-made climate change theory. It did not rubbish the evidence for man made climate change, but simply suggested that this is not as clear cut as some of the environmental lobby and more recently our government would like to make out.
I want to find the more detailed information which the article drew on myself, so as soon as I do I will let you know. But when was the last time you saw anything on the news, or in the papers suggesting that human activity might not be affecting our climate after all, or some evidence exists which at leasts throws current knowledge into doubt. I simply can't recall ever having seen it, and whether you believe the article I saw or not, it's inconcievable that every single piece of scientific data backs up the climate change theory 100%. Why aren't we seeing both sides of the argument?
And how can this theory have passed into fact when, as the article said judging the future climate with the available accurate climate data in the context of the earth's history is like trying to plot the entire course of a garden path by looking at one paving slab.
"It may do no harm to look into the backgrounds of the more vociferous "dissenters" and ask what's in it for them, or at least what's in it for the people who fund them."
This is the exact problem. As someone who has not bought into the whole man-made climate change thing (I am, believe it or not, still open minded), I see a government who are to my view playing on people's concerns to pass new tax rises that would otherwise have them taking to the streets in protest. As someone who is clearly more environmentally aware than me, you see the sceptics as people who have financial or other incentives behind their dissent. Oil company funding is what I presume you hint at. This goes back to my point, the powers that be on both sides of the debate in this whole thing seem to have little more than their own interests at heart. This leaves the likes of you and me stuck in the middle of it, unsure exactly of what's fact and what's BS.
Of course we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, but we don't need fear over climate change to do it. A combination of technology, political instability, supply restrictions and spiralling prices will do that for us, and arguably quicker than any global agreement on emission reductions can ever be agreed and implemented.
Cheers
DP
|
Oilburner........
To the false plates and tin foil add a box of tricks to send a virus type of data down the mobile phone network
to put " HAL" in all sorts of trouble.
There will be some sharp brainpower applied to this .
As for policing,they can't / won't even catch the mobile phone driving drivers, so I can see real problems for the police, if the driving populace decide they have had enough !
The real villains will have a field day while the police are occupied with this .
|
Agreed, the more technologically dependent we become, the more chance there is of electronic attacks to government systems, especially those that are disliked! :)
But like any virus or denial of service type attack, you can interrupt the system if you're good, but you can only stop it for so long until a work around is found. There's sharp brain power applied from both sides.
Policing is simple, once ANPR picks you up as a non-payer, you get sent an instant fine through the post, exactly the same as speeding fines. Speeding fines are hated now, but still the vast majority get paid and licences get endorsed. If they can manage it now (for the majority, as we see, there's always a few exceptions) then why not for this logical extension of the system?
|
Ah, but you forget,I have revolving numberplates on the DB5, so ANPR will not work.
|
|
|
|
Reading Borough Council has been awarded £680K to research ways of tackling congestion.
Theres no doubt that Reading BC are anti-car.
One of the quick and easy ways for them to ease congestion is to have better control over their roadworks contractors time taken to complete jobs like the A33-Rose Kiln Lane roundabout modification project. Why cantroad contractors be like so many other industries where project over-runs start costing them significant liquidated damages per day of over-run ?
|
|
|
|
