IF the GPS system uses a pulse from your car to identify it, does anyone imagine how long it will be before organised crime finds a way round it by changing the signal to ideentify a vehicle that is not chargeable?
I would reckon about 5 minutes.
So it's not viable imo.
ANPR linked to road pricing is more possible. Anyone for revolving number plates?
madf
|
Road Charging
We already have a road levy - it is called Fuel Duty and it works - 20+ petrol companies pay it every week in the £00's of millions - big money easy to collect - Joe Public cannot evade it..
It is a fair way of charging - the more miles you do the more you pay, the bigger the engine the more gallons you buy.
Why try and re-invent a wheel that works and with the exception of some stolen fuel everyone pays and you cannot avoid it.
Just look at Local Govt Finance - Charges on houses & Businesses worked - they tried to charge individuals (Poll Tax) and chaos reined - we are back paying on property - not perfect but it is collectable as moving houses (the buildings) is difficult.
|
The apparently unnecessary complexity and expense of road pricing as a way of collecting government vig (as the mafia call it) is less to do with big brother, perhaps, than providing employment for large numbers of mean-spirited alienated jobsworths.
A whole new human category is being created before our eyes on the model of the sort of people no one had a high regard for at school. Those now being overpaid to make everyone's life a misery.
What really needs examining is the underlying political philosophy. I'm afraid I can't think of a printable name for it. Any ideas?
|
>Lud
it's called.
Creating public service jobs. Which means more Unison members. Who pay the political levy.
In the US it's called pork barrel politics:-)
madf
|
|
Not really madf. Good honest pork-barrel can be kept in line, sometimes, up to a point, by the law. What I'm talking about is legislating a new and not very attractive human category into existence for squalid reasons or none.
|
There are at least 3 companies involved in the scheme to track all vehicles for a plethora of reasons, these are Nice Systems of Israel (who have links to MOSAD), Fortress GB of Tavistock Square in London, and ICTIS Ltd.
It is these companies lobbying politicians to implement their 'solutions' not us lobbying politicians, or politicians lobbying the companies to provide the 'solutions'.
What you have to realise is that this is part of a much bigger picture, it is part of a suite of interlinked systems with names like 'Insight through interactions', Harmony, Nice Tracker etc...
If some data is missing from some sensors of the system, the values can be substituted with data from other systems, eg, if your car tracker loses GPS, then the data will be substituted from best-guess mobile phone pings, ANPR, speed cameras, traffic master, CCTV and even satellite video, the latter of which while of too poor an image quality to identify a vehicle, when used in conjuction with the aformentioned ground/local sensors, all it has to do is track a blob between sensors.Just as if you see a car and recognise it by make, model, colour, reg no., if you don't let it out of your sight, you still know its the same car when it's on the horizon and barely visible.
|
|
|
The reason upping fuel prices isn't the way forward is because it MISSES THE POINT! The point of road pricing is to charge more for peak usage, and less for unused roads. Tractors on red diesel are at the bottom end of the scale!
If the aim is to reduce congestion in urban hotspots, fuel at £3 per litre is much more likely to irritate the rural Scots than to achieve its aim.
|
Now a GPS chip in GPS devices reports it's position as a series of codes over a serial connection (longditude, lattitude, etc.). So all it will take is someone to create something that sits between the actual GPS chip and the rest of the system and transform this into different positions.
How I'd see it work is real position comes detected and via serial, and then the intercept bit outputs a different static position in a non-charging zone to the rest of the device. End result is you do not pay.
Sure it would be easy to do for someone. Besides I don't think GPS will be reliable enough apart from maybe motorways where there is rarely anything built up nearby to block GPS signals.
|
The car will not broadcast its position, it will simply broadcast. Its position will be determined according to the location of the receiver(s). All vehicles will be detected by radar and those not broadcasting will be photographed.
Not totally unlike the existing congestion zone system in London if roadside receivers are used, not totally unlike mobile phones if RF network coverage is used, and not totally unlike the philosophy of a Tracker system.
Which bit of that do you think will not work ? Which bit of that do you think is not currently already in use, albeit in pieces ?
What additional value do you think GPS would necessarily add beyond ensuring that two systems back each other up ?
|
>>Presumably a switched off phone cannot be tracked at all.
Correct at this time with UK handhelds.
Its actually not much work to track 30m vehicles, about the same as tracking 1. The infrastructure costs more. If one considered a UMTS type solution then one might imagine that the country could be 98% covered for about £450m. Plus a lot of OpEx and project costs. That's not much money in the scheme of things. And of course the government would spend 10 times that, because that's what governments do. However, the government doesn't need national coverage, they need urban and sub-urban coverage - that's a great deal cheaper.
Then you'd have to add the cost of the receiver, installation of the receiver nad future maintenance. Now that would be really expensive.
However, I wonder what happens if you abandon GPS, UMTS or anything else and go with ANPR cameras as per the London Congestion Zone. That'd be pretty cheap, no new technology, a limited amount of new laws and an already proven and known process.
It won't impact inflation, at all.
Like I said, there are no particular technical issues, it just requires the political will and a bit of money. I cannot think of any new technology that would be required. Its only an infrastructure problem.
|
>>Presumably a switched off phone cannot be tracked at all. Correct at this time with UK handhelds.
I don't see the point in tracking a phone, whether switched on or off. Sometimes it will be in the car (how does it know which car?), sometimes in the pocket while the owner is on foot, sometimes at home, perhaps at home while the owner is off in the car. Sometimes on the train.
|
|
The point was that the technology is there, not that tracking the phone would actually work for road charging.
|
"But for the convoys of commercial vehicles, including white van man in his Mercedes Sprinter, all restricted to 56mhg at whatever the road-charging commercial rate is. Since they are delivering almost every tangible thing we purchase I think their increased costs will be passed on to consumers. But I may be wrong."
I doubt you are. Costs incurred in the course of transportation are passed on. Simple fact.
|
|
There is already a way of limiting congestion. It is called time. People will only sit in traffic for so long before they change jobs, change routes, move elsewhere. Once you complicate the market by adding pricing in then you will have all sorts of unforseen consequences. Everyone's time is equal for them but money isn't. Fuel duty is the perfect proxy for reducing travel and encouraging greater fuel economy and going for green aims and its transparent. Road pricing isn't. This idiotic idea is estimated at £60 odd billion to implement! It would be much better to use that money to pay off the obscene amout of debt GB's got this country in and reduce the interest payments on it.
Councils have been told to be anti car and create congestion to fool the great british public into thinking road charging is the only answer. If these prats hadn't introduced idiotic planning policies which has actively encouraged travel ( made them bags of cash in the process) then we wouldn't be in this mess. Town centres are no go areas so everyone goes out of town, you can't work where you live so you have to travel between them, kids aren't forced to go to the local school so they're all driven, local post offices are shutting, local hospitals are shutting. It's a never ending litany of idiotic policies which have made travel more necessary and yet the govt have the gall to complain we're travelling more!
teabelly
|
|
People will sit in traffic for a hell of a long time before they consider changing jobs, or even ask their current employer for flexi time. Peak congestion is not just bad for those trapped in it it blights streets, creates rat runs and renders sleep impossible for those on shifts. And that's before counting emissions.
|
|
|
Teabelly.
Well said, my thoughts entirely.
Road pricing will never be politically acceptable to motorists, so it will probably die a quiet death until another civil servant brings it to life in a few years time. I do not believe we have the technology that would make it work 100% of the time and implemented so it could never be avoided. Currently 1 in 20 cars does not have a road fund licence or insurance, also we cannot stop disqualified drivers from using cars, so what chance doe road pricing have. No one has mentioned how do you collect the money. If you use a credit or debit card to pay your monthly account, then a whole new range of problems arises. Anyone with a brian will realise Road Pricing is a pie in the sky idea that will never work.
The London Congestion Zone has had the desired effect with me. I do not work in London and only used to visit occasionally. This means I will never visit during the week because I object to the congestion charge and expensive parking charges ruthlessly enforced. Since the congestion charge was implemented I have only been to London by car once on a Saturday. Why? Its becoming too much hassle and public transport is not particularly easy from where I live (still involves a car journey and station parking cost). So ultimately I go everywhere else but London. So tourist attractions, shops and restaurants loose custom - tough, blame the system. I feel sure my feelings are replicated by many others.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
|
The reason upping fuel prices isn't the way forward is because it MISSES THE POINT!
I agree. But so does road charging. Peak time traffic congestion is caused by people getting to work. This is not something they have any choice over, and something that will continue regardless of any scheme brought in to control it. Any extra costs imposed on commuting will simply come out of people's disposable income, and therefore the economy.
The only way forward I can see that will actually reduce congestion is the provision of an affordable, reliable, punctual and integrated public transport system with plenty of capacity (none of which applies to the current system). We also need legislation to force employers to support flexible/remote working unless there is a valid business case for not doing so.
This would provide a combination of a marked reduction the number of commuters travelling at peak times, and a realistic alternative or faster journey times for those who genuinely have to travel.
It wouldn't raise a penny in revenue though, which is why it will never happen.
Cheers
DP
|
I suspect that arguments like this are the real reason for a road charging plan.
Think about it: if the Labour government said "we're going to double fuel tax, toll the motorways and introduce congestion charging to every major town in the UK", you'd all rise in protest and probably vote them out at the next election.
So, instead, they plan to introduce a "fair, equitable system where you only pay if you're causing congestion (or PR blather to that effect) and the motorists of Britain moan and grumble.
Then due to public resistance, road charging dies a death so the unfortunate government is left with no alterative but to introduce high fuel tax, tolls and congestion charging. And they'd have loved not to have to, only you the electorate gave them no choice.
Result: the cost of motoring goes up using simple tax measures to collect the extra revenue, the spin doctors shove the blame back onto you, and its business as usual come election time.
Oh, and two years later the newly elected Irish government copies the plan but doubles the rates. Grrr.
|
|
|
|
"..go with ANPR cameras as per the London Congestion Zone.." I thought these had proved unreliable, and the system was going to "tag and beacon" in Spring 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
