Petition Tony...

[Biker Biggles]

I'm not against this petition even though this is not yet a proposed policy.It's all about getting debate going and putting the issue into the public domain as much as possible.Most of this surveillance society stuff has crept up over the past twenty years with little debate,simply because the technology has become available and affordable.Similarly that technology to track and charge all road vehicles(and the inevitable extension of that into enforcement)is with us,so the sooner we get the debate going the better.All means of doing that are good in my book.

[northwind]

I agree with that, but I reckon the negatives outweigh the positives- if there's a debate going on it's clearly kneejerk and uninformed. And now, demonstrably kneejerk and uninformed and publically on record as such.

Originally Posted by northwind

I agree with that, but I reckon the negatives outweigh the positives- if there's a debate going on it's clearly kneejerk and uninformed. And now, demonstrably kneejerk and uninformed and publically on record as such.

So what do you suggest we do? Apply apathy as most of us do and wait until its law and its too late.

[northwind]

No, wait till there's a bill, or at the very least an actual proposal, and then get into that. Or construct a debate based around objections to tracking in general. This is a mess, it's neither one or the other- that makes it unfocused and esay to ignore. They can literally respond "You've all been mislead by the petition writers, these "proposals" are nothing of the sort. Move along".

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy"

"WE, HM government, do not have a published plan for vehicle tracking to scrap. Yours, the govt."
Next week, they can start a "new" one. And that petition was specifically only agains the old plan, which at the danger of repeating myself, actually doesn't exist. The actual chain email's complete rubbish...

It doesn't matter that most people will be making a general objection against the idea of track and trace- the petition's too specific, regardless of intent.

"We, the undersigned, state our objection to the implementation of tracking private vehicles on public roads for any purpose. This represents a potential invasion of privacy which is not acceptable, regardless of any possible benefits. We petition the Prime Minister to renounce the concept of constant vehicle tracking."

Something like that. That could be cleaned up loads, I'm sure- but when you make a demand, you don't give the target space to wriggle out of it.

Something like that.

If that is the case then I think people may have been mislead by reports in the media. I for one saw a report on breakfast news a few weeks ago which certainly gave me the impression the government were seriously considering this one. But being breakfast news I was only half listening.

[northwind]

There's no doubt that they're considering it... But there's a difference between considering something, and planning to do it. The petition- well, mainly the chain email to be fair- talks about the one that was reported on a while back as if it's in the pipeline, when it was basically a stab in the dark made with total guesswork on the numbers.

[Biker Biggles]

Well I've just read that Tony is going to Email every signatory to this petition to put them all right on their heretic views.While taking Norty's point about how counter productive these petitions can be,I would suggest that this one has done exactly the right thing and hit the authoritarian class right where it hurts.They have been shaken up by this,and that can only be a good thing.
Roll on the revolution.

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

Surely here's a far better way of dealing with traffic congestion-

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/nav?pa...EWS_OTHER-NEWS

Take the vehicles from all the c**ts who don't pay road tax, insurance or even have a license and crush them.

This practice is just as common with rich Mercedes drivers as it is with chavs and scallys. They're the scum who will take you off and cause you massive insurance aggro because they're not insured (happend to me 4 years ago- bloke pulled out in front of me, wrote my car off and then gave false info and buggered off. I was too shaken to check the info he gave me (was my first car crash)-witness took the license plate info and police disappeared after he had gone!. He dicked the insurance co around for over a year. Ensuing ballsups by insurance and solicitors added months more- it's taken 2 years of him paying £20 a month to finally pay my uninsured losses- though the occasional cheques always came in very handy! Last cheque was received last weekend- he's yet to pay the insurance co back for the car etc. Jeez- I tell yer!!! Another saga out of the way!