Pay as you drive

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:29 am

My mate was in London this weekend - he loved the subway.
Said it was very easy to get from Here to There.

What do you London beings think about the subway?

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:32 am

it suffers from the number of people that use it and its age.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am

Yeah it can get extremely cramped at peak times - to the point where you're literally jammed in. Normally I don't mind, but I usually get stuck behind some girl with a ponytail who insists on swishing her head from side to side, brushing my face with her skanky hair. I don't mind being squashed on the tube, but don't touch the face.

Otherwise, it's by far the easiest and quickest way to get from A to B in London apart from cycling (or walking, in some cases). I usually do one of those three. I only drive when I'm leaving London.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:33 pm

Public transport is crappy - I hate it - as I think I mentioned earlier. As for the quality of the roads, a month ago my car crunched over four deep potholes in a two-mile stretch of road. It would be okay if the things were fixed properly, but all that gets done is the holes are filled with tarmac and left. By the time a few cars have ran over it at speed, the hole is opened again.
Glad to see my road tax is put to good use.
The tube sucks too (not two tube socks).

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:05 pm

public transport may be frustarting but i think its preferable to us all choking to death.

The notion that life should be convenient is one i think we may need to get over if we are ever going to address environmental issues.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:20 pm

I don't have a convenient life.
At least I don't think so. I just find that all the harebrained new schemes to screw the humble motorist out of more cash sucks. And why is it always the motorist's fault during a car/pedestrian accident? A child got killed by a bus just down the road from me recently, even though witnesses said the kid had cycled off of the path without warning and right in front of the bus, some people said the bus driver should lose his job. Luckily sense prevailed, but it was not a pretty event.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:51 pm

Autobloke wrote:I don't have a convenient life.

been a victim of famine recently?

And why is it always the motorist's fault during a car/pedestrian accident?

i suspect it isn't, but you could argue that, as the driver of the thing capable of ending someones life, you should always be aware of what is going on around you and in a position to react.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:58 pm

But pedestrians/cyclists do REALLY dumb stuff all the time. Right in front of my car.
And famine? No. Not sure if that counts as 'convenient' or not, but I get your point and you are right.

KingMob · Post by **KingMob** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:00 pm

Just thought I'd note that I did end up spending a day hurtling around London with the missus like I was talking about a while ago, and we used the Underground. It was much as I remember, except the ticket price had gone up by about a factor of 6.

Had no problems, sure it was cramped a couple of times, but I was expecting that and had no difficulty with it. Got to where we were going doublequick, and even tho there were some delays along two of the lines we didn't have to wait more than 4 minutes for a tube and not once did we have to halt. TBH, it was pleasanter than it was the last time I was there, 5 years ago.

Also, the train service from the Midlands (where I was staying) to London was very good, no probs at all apart from the way the chairs were situated. Ours are comfier. But I was expecting a Terrible English Train Nightmare and was pleased to have no real issues to moan about.

The worst transport-related times I had on my entire trip were to do with almost being killed by some ******* twats who can't drive and don't seem to know what 'speed-limit' and 'indicator signals' are. Seriously, I was almost hit by other cars at severe speeds twice. The second time, if we hadn't swerved out of their way there would have been a smash. I wasn't particuarly impressed by the general standard of driving I saw in general, tbh.
Basically, I had less problems and a safer, more enjoyable time on public transport than I did in the car.

Don't know enough about the proposed scheme to comment, it sounds a bit barmy but I wouldn't mind seeing some number-crunching.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:04 pm

I don't like the tube 'cos I have no sense of direction and get lost if I have to change lines more than once. My fault, not the tube's.
And yep, indicators don't seem to exist here too. We have lots of roundabouts and it really slows things up when you are waiting for someone to go across and then they turn left instead.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:08 pm

Autobloke wrote:But pedestrians/cyclists do REALLY dumb stuff all the time. Right in front of my car.

Sure, i get that. But as long as you are open to the possibilities of this happening you protect both them and yourself.

This is also true the other way around of course, but the sad fact is that lots of people expect others too look out for them.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:13 pm

Well, because I always expect this to happen ('cos it usually does) I'm always checking what's going on around me (as motorists should) in case someone does something stupid. So far I've been safe. Except for when some arse reversed into my car in a carpark - I couldn't move because I had a car right up behind me too.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:48 pm

Best First wrote:
Autobloke wrote:I don't have a convenient life.
been a victim of famine recently?

On a vaguely related note, as has been observed before, equality and addressing environmental issues does not equate to "why do we have to pay to drive instead of driving for free?" it equates more to "why do we get to drive when some people are lucky if they have a mule?"

I think if we were to settle both environmental issues and matters of global inequality we in the West would find our lives a great deal more than inconvenienced.

Back on topic-

As a commentator in the Times observed today, isn't it a little rich that politicians/royalty will be able to write these charges off as expenses which we the taxpayer will pick up, along with our own charges, when its their shocking underinvestment and rotten planning which has led to this situation?

The deadlock on some motorways has not been helped by the mass of house building. Nobody in power even considered the infrastructure and whether it would be able to support it, particularly around the M25 and M1.

That doesn't just mean infrastructure in terms of roads, there is little evidence of planning rail or bus links or any form of alternative in many developments.

It's all very well the powers that be deciding our roads and clogged and polluted- why didn't they plan them better? Most roads/systems seemed to have been designed by public school boys who's sole experience of using a road has been what their chaufer tells them about them.

Like the chap said, the toffs will finally take the roads back from all the nasty plebs which have started to clog them up. Who'd have thought so many commoners would end up owning cars, eh?

Post by **Best First** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:30 am

Karl Lynch wrote:
As a commentator in the Times observed today, isn't it a little rich that politicians/royalty will be able to write these charges off as expenses which we the taxpayer will pick up,

Meh. I really don't think that should be the key thrust of the debate, do you? Ooh! We pay the wages of expenses of the people who run the country! er, and? Who esle is going to pay them?

Royalty is a different matter and a seperaet debate.

when its their shocking underinvestment and rotten planning which has led to this situation?

planning maybe, but its not their unerinvestment its our underinvestment. How many governments get elected on platforms of increased (net) spending? Everyone driving isn't a sustainable model but again how many people's ears prick up with joy when policies are announced to force people off the roads and onto more public transport?

The fault lies as much with the voters as those we have voted for.

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:08 am

Meh. I really don't think that should be the key thrust of the debate, do you? Ooh! We pay the wages of expenses of the people who run the country! er, and? Who esle is going to pay them?

Whether its a key thrust is secondary to my discontent that the people who make the laws are often immune to them.

Grammar schools are slowly closed and many comprehensives are a nightmare. No problem, MPs will get their children into private schools.

Hospital waiting times in casualty are high, unless you're an elected official.

Roads are charged per mile. Never mind, MP's can write it off as a business expense.

The list of gripes goes on for some way. Detachment of the people who make and enforce these decisions from the impact of the decisions does not make for a good understanding of running the country imo. Nor does it show a particularly good attitude towards the people that you are supposedly one-of and representing.

The fault lies as much with the voters as those we have voted for.

Our last two governments were elected on less than 70% of the overall vote, it doesn't seem fair to blame everyone. Also how do we know that all of the money being collected is being spent appropriately, i.e. we need more to make it work?

I'd have thought by rearranging what we are already collecting we could do a great deal without having to tax all people further.

That also doesn't answer the problem of housing developmments, for example here in the Southeast, being run without any proper infrastructure- no major rail network connection (if any), bus routes tagged on as an afterthought to existing services, no hospitals or schools. It's not surprising tht people then drive to get to work and amenities and public transport links. For example the housing developments going on a few miles away from Ashford.

I don't see how that is the fault of the voter.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:53 am

Karl Lynch wrote:It's not surprising that people then drive to get to work and amenities and public transport links.

Like Park and Rides - you have to drive somewhere to get a bus, which sort of doesn't make sense. Then again, Norwich (my nearest) is a big-ring, mostly one-way, nightmare, that I find impossible to drive around in.
My point (I think) is that surely we should have a better bus system that means I don't have to drive 15 miles to catch a bus and then sit on it for 45 minutes to get to where I'm going. Okay, my destination IS about 20 miles away, but it always amuses me to see the full carparks outside train stations, where someone has had to drive there to get a train.
I suppose it's the best we can hope for though, otherwise we'd have trains and buses all over the shop, which is bad for the enviroment, but until we get a less restricted public transfport system (major overhaul), I shall avoid it best I can. When I can get a bus from my road to the road at which I work, at the time I need it ie. NOT one that will get me there 30 minutes before I'm due to start or arrive to take me home an hour after I finish (and that's the last bus for the night - no overtime money without a car) then I'll continue my driving.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:04 am

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but it irks me when people, like this Time writer, raise much wider issues as and when it suits them and tie them to smaller issues without realy doing anything consistantly to address the wider issues.

"Detachment of the people who make and enforce these decisions from the impact of the decisions does not make for a good understanding of running the country imo"

i agree with, but how far your list of accusations apply past 'top' MPs i am less sure, and that being said running the counry isn't exactly an easy job so shouldn't it include some perks? Certainly these people could earn far better money working in industry but choose not too which to my mind should count for something.

"Our last two governments were elected on less than 70% of the overall vote, it doesn't seem fair to blame everyone. Also how do we know that all of the money being collected is being spent appropriately, i.e. we need more to make it work?

I'd have thought by rearranging what we are already collecting we could do a great deal without having to tax all people further. "

Again i think this is a valid point - we do not have neough visibility of how our funds are allocated to really judge, but one more this is an issue that should be raised acorss the board, not just in relation to this issue and the fact that we as an electoral mass have never really pushed for this does render some of the responsibility ours.

Equally with planning , how many people really pay attention to what is being built around them? How many people regularly visit their local planning office and raise concerns? Whilst some of the responsibility of course lies with the elected officialls most of us i suspect could do a lot more to not allow these officialls room for the complacency they frequently exhibit.

And the less than 70% you mention involves about 40% who didn't turn up at all - unless they have mounted some kind of serious protest or lobbying to espouse why they didn't i'm fairly sure they have little right to complain about how anything is run.

I think much of this is symptomatic of much wider problems with how the country is run and it frustarets me that people only touch on these wider issues as and when it suits them. That journalist, as afar as i am concerned, isn't doing his job very well.

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:14 am

Oh I certainly see where you're coming from there- its essentially what things like the Mail do all the time, turn one issue into another into another until the person reading it is so confused they don't know whats fact and what isn't. I suppose in the end tho, Journalists writing in the commentary section are paid to do just that. Comment. Which often involves rattling on about the state of things, for good or ill.

Certainly top MPs as we know tend to be rather bad in the 'do as I say not as I do' stakes, tbh a lot of lower MPs are pretty good (some actually try and represent their people!!) but then again lower MPs often aren't allowed to vote properly so aren't allowed to make proper decisions. They get 'the whip' out, which I assume is a cat o nine tails of some sort o.O

I suppose in the end it comes down to the mess that is Whitehalls book keeping. In all honestly I don't think even if they wanted to they could track where all the money goes, how much comes in etc. down to even the nearest million. Maybe if they did things like this wouldn't be an issue

I often think the French had the right idea for their ruling classes back in the 18th Century

Course the bunch that replace them are just as bad. Or worse. bah.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:30 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:15 pm

imagine a world without top gear tho... NOOOoooo

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:17 pm

A much MUCH happier place.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:23 pm

no way TopGears the best thing on TV - that and Football...

I love my cars, and TGs funny

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:28 pm

Figured I'd ask this here seeing as it's car related:

I'm filling out the form for my provisional driving licence-I've had one before but that was over 10 years ago so it's long since lapsed. What I was wondering is, do any of you lot know if when the form makes reference to 'previous licences' whether that pertains just to full licences, or if it includes any provisionals you may have previously had as well?

I'm trying to avoid ringing the DVLA, because their automated phone system is ******* awful.

Cheers.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:40 pm

Wouldn't have thought it made alot of difference. Don't they have the info on their website?

Post by **Best First** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:23 am

i'm aboutto do teh same - i was juist gonna ignore the previous one.

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:09 am

Awesome. Cheers dudes.

I think driving lessons/tests are all a bit unfair anyway. There should be one test-just a piece of paper with one question:

Do you think body-kits on Ford Fiestas look cool, and do you think it's a great idea to burn the bastards around McDonalds car-park every night?"

If you answer 'no', then congratulations! You obviously have common sense and are welcome on the roads!

If you answer 'yes', then consider buying weekly rail or bus tickets for the rest of your life, because you clearly don't deserve a licence.

Job done.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:50 pm

Do they still not tell you how many questions you got right on the theory? That said, I know I got all of them right 'cos it was costing me cash so I swotted right up like a spod.
Is it all computers now too? I had the old paper test, but someone told me it had changed when they took theirs.
As for the real on-road test, I stuffed mine up first time on a double mini roundabout on a tiny corner. Too fast. Bumped right over them.
My brother drove into a lorry during his test. One of my friends failed before she even left the test centre - she reversed into a car as she left the space she was parked in. THAT'S a waste of cash right there.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:11 pm

Just wondering: how will paying for the Pay As You Drive thing happen? Will the cash be taken from our bank once a month? I hate the idea of that possibility - I don't want a big bill every four weeks or so. I much prefer to chuck a tenner of petrol in the car as and when I need it. Or sometimes someone will give me a few quid to take them some place. Now I'll have to put that money in the bank. God, I hope it won't be yearly like Road Tax. That said, with most people's finances, I doubt that the money would get paid if it was anually, as temptation to spend it would be too big. i can't see how this is going to work.
Also, GPS tracking for keeping tabs on our journeys are not exactly reliable - it might say that I've made a longer journey than I did.
Okay, here's a possibility. Although I'd rather not let the insurance companies be in charge of this - they'll screw us every which way.
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm
Oh, and yippee - another trip to the garage once a year which I'll have to pay for.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:39 pm

AFAIK the plan is an itemised bill will drop through the post every month/quarter like a phone bill.

Someone raised the excellent point that this removes all incentive to have a smaller, more efficient car. No fuel duty so less incentive to buy an economic car and no road tax which incrementally goes up depending on how un-green a vehicle is.

SUV city here we come.

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:04 pm

And if the little back roads are gonna be cheaper than motorways and trunk roads, won't people just use the backroads. So we'll have SUVs rat-running through all the little streets, after spending years (and tonnes of cash) on bypasses, truck roads and the like to avoid these problems.

The powers that be will probably decide the solution to this is more 'traffic calming'. Some parts of Sheffield are like the Monaco F1 circuit already! I've nearly crash several times when I narrowly avoided bollards or zig-zaggy sticky-out kerbs that were not there last week.