Road Pricing
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,245
Likes: 0
From: Warks
Road Pricing
So, the Nazi/New Labour govt have decided that we are going to have to pay per mile for using the motorways.
Just been watching Sky news and some fool on there evangelising about how he gave up his car 2 years ago and it was the best thing he ever did. Unsurprisingly this idiot lives in Central loondon (sic), works at the same place pretty much every day and never goes outside London. He says that its worth a 20yr period of pain to get to a situation where you use the car rarely or not at all. quoting the "fact" that you dont really need a car any more because of how good public transport is!
He obviously hasnt been up this way!
Personally. I need my car for my job, it involves travelling all around the country often with little notice (and therefore not able to take advantage of early booking for tickets) I most often travel and work on my own. Why are the red commie t***ers targetting me? I already finance a good chucnk into the sponging scumbag fund (ie income tax, VAT, Fuel Duty, VED etc.) Now they want to bleed me dry some more. What a load of
we need an election quickly IMHO
your thoughts?
Just been watching Sky news and some fool on there evangelising about how he gave up his car 2 years ago and it was the best thing he ever did. Unsurprisingly this idiot lives in Central loondon (sic), works at the same place pretty much every day and never goes outside London. He says that its worth a 20yr period of pain to get to a situation where you use the car rarely or not at all. quoting the "fact" that you dont really need a car any more because of how good public transport is!
He obviously hasnt been up this way!
Personally. I need my car for my job, it involves travelling all around the country often with little notice (and therefore not able to take advantage of early booking for tickets) I most often travel and work on my own. Why are the red commie t***ers targetting me? I already finance a good chucnk into the sponging scumbag fund (ie income tax, VAT, Fuel Duty, VED etc.) Now they want to bleed me dry some more. What a load of
we need an election quickly IMHOyour thoughts?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,589
Likes: 0
From: Isle of Man
then vote the ####ers out - some morons (well quite a lot, actually) voted them in in the first place 
politicians - kill them all, I say. We've just had a general election here and within 2 weeks they're saying taxes should be raised to pay for the health service - don't remember anyone having that in their manifesto
I think politicians' manifestos should be legally binding and the public able to sue for breach of promise if the tw*ts decide to do something contrary thereto!
Don't motorists already pay per mile anyway by buying fuel, or is that just my fertive imagination?
politicians - kill them all, I say. We've just had a general election here and within 2 weeks they're saying taxes should be raised to pay for the health service - don't remember anyone having that in their manifesto
I think politicians' manifestos should be legally binding and the public able to sue for breach of promise if the tw*ts decide to do something contrary thereto!Don't motorists already pay per mile anyway by buying fuel, or is that just my fertive imagination?
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,759
Likes: 0
From: In Bed..... fordshire
James May's column in the Telegraph said exactly the right thing.
"Starry-eyed green converts should talking down to the rest of us and face up to the reality that we can't turn back the clock, says James May
One of the things that really annoys me about environmentalists is that I've never met a genuine one. Obviously, some of my Left-wing friends are driving around in small diesel hatchbacks claiming to be concerned about CO2 emissions, but the truth is that they'd drive them anyway, because they're not interested.
Recycling is another one. We have a recycling scheme where I live, and I approve of it: re-using material instead of chucking it in a hole in the ground is a good principle at the very least. But let's be honest here. All we are really doing is putting the same rubbish in a different-coloured bag. I've never re-used a Spam tin as a flower pot or anything like that.
In short, no one I know has abandoned anything he or she holds dear in the name of saving the environment. Anyone who genuinely believes that Planet Earth is the most important thing in the world should make a stand against human reproduction, since babies represent the pollution of the future. But only Philip Larkin was miserable enough to suggest that people shouldn't have kids (and he was, by the way, an environmentalist).
Instead, we're subjected to a lot of cobblers about the environmental burden of keeping a television on standby or leaving a light on. Recently, I read some research that purported to demonstrate how much global warming was being caused by Australians singing in the shower. Do we honestly believe that Bruce and Sheila should not be allowed to join in a verse or two of Waltzing Matilda?
The fact is that human advancement has gone hand-in-hand with an increase in energy consumption ever since man first built a bonfire and smelted some ore to make a spear tip. I honestly don't see how we can go backwards, and I really don't want to see the sky blackened by giant windmills, so I've joined the pro-nuclear lobby.
Surely, if we apply all the effort that's being expended on phoney environmentalism to making nuclear power safe, we can have limitless energy. Nuclear power plants can be used to fuel the anticipated hydrogen infrastructure and we might even find ourselves in the happy position of running our homes from the power supply in our fuel-cell cars, rather than recharging our battery cars from the mains electricity supply in our homes. Next week's Motoring section will be big on hydrogen, and everybody should read it.
Environmentalists won't. They dare not read a forbidden text, lest they learn something that compromises their cosy, self-righteous fundamentalism.
Rather than discuss the practicalities of progressing towards a carbon-neutral, hydrogen-fuelled future, they would prefer to lecture me about the environmental benefits of eating seasonal domestic produce. Those of us with any sense have always done this anyway, because it's one of life's great pleasures. It's hardly a new idea.
And then I'm subjected to righteous pleas from people with supposedly green credentials to stop using supermarket carrier bags. Those of us with half an ounce of sense never did. They're ugly, they blow around on windy days and they make any man look downtrodden and emasculated. We already know that a wicker twohandled bag is more voguish for a lady, and that a military-style duffel bag or rucksack is more becoming for a gentleman. Those of us who realise this have been polythene-neutral for decades.
Finally, there's that old chestnut, the bicycle. In London, where I live, the mayor has taken to slapping up giant posters (at a considerable cost in CO2, I imagine) telling me that "It's better by bike". The other day, a newspaper interviewer, talking to me about the future of the car, asked: "What about bicycles?" Do these people imagine we have never heard of bicycles? Or that we have no idea what they're good for? I haven't been without one since I was three, and I still use one regularly. There are few things I find more galling than to be confronted by a man who bought a bicycle last week and now harangues me about their benefits, as if the bloody thing has only just been invented and no one else has quite cottoned on to it yet.
When I cycle down to the end of my road en route to the local greengrocers with my reusable duffel bag, I don't need a poster to tell me I'm doing the sensible thing. I've known it for years. Similarly, if I turn out of the road in my car heading for Scotland, there's no point trying to convince me I'd be better off going on a bicycle, because I've done that and I can assure you it's not true.
Environmentalists, stop treating us like idiots. The rest of you, relax. It's OK to own a car."
"Starry-eyed green converts should talking down to the rest of us and face up to the reality that we can't turn back the clock, says James May
One of the things that really annoys me about environmentalists is that I've never met a genuine one. Obviously, some of my Left-wing friends are driving around in small diesel hatchbacks claiming to be concerned about CO2 emissions, but the truth is that they'd drive them anyway, because they're not interested.
Recycling is another one. We have a recycling scheme where I live, and I approve of it: re-using material instead of chucking it in a hole in the ground is a good principle at the very least. But let's be honest here. All we are really doing is putting the same rubbish in a different-coloured bag. I've never re-used a Spam tin as a flower pot or anything like that.
In short, no one I know has abandoned anything he or she holds dear in the name of saving the environment. Anyone who genuinely believes that Planet Earth is the most important thing in the world should make a stand against human reproduction, since babies represent the pollution of the future. But only Philip Larkin was miserable enough to suggest that people shouldn't have kids (and he was, by the way, an environmentalist).
Instead, we're subjected to a lot of cobblers about the environmental burden of keeping a television on standby or leaving a light on. Recently, I read some research that purported to demonstrate how much global warming was being caused by Australians singing in the shower. Do we honestly believe that Bruce and Sheila should not be allowed to join in a verse or two of Waltzing Matilda?
The fact is that human advancement has gone hand-in-hand with an increase in energy consumption ever since man first built a bonfire and smelted some ore to make a spear tip. I honestly don't see how we can go backwards, and I really don't want to see the sky blackened by giant windmills, so I've joined the pro-nuclear lobby.
Surely, if we apply all the effort that's being expended on phoney environmentalism to making nuclear power safe, we can have limitless energy. Nuclear power plants can be used to fuel the anticipated hydrogen infrastructure and we might even find ourselves in the happy position of running our homes from the power supply in our fuel-cell cars, rather than recharging our battery cars from the mains electricity supply in our homes. Next week's Motoring section will be big on hydrogen, and everybody should read it.
Environmentalists won't. They dare not read a forbidden text, lest they learn something that compromises their cosy, self-righteous fundamentalism.
Rather than discuss the practicalities of progressing towards a carbon-neutral, hydrogen-fuelled future, they would prefer to lecture me about the environmental benefits of eating seasonal domestic produce. Those of us with any sense have always done this anyway, because it's one of life's great pleasures. It's hardly a new idea.
And then I'm subjected to righteous pleas from people with supposedly green credentials to stop using supermarket carrier bags. Those of us with half an ounce of sense never did. They're ugly, they blow around on windy days and they make any man look downtrodden and emasculated. We already know that a wicker twohandled bag is more voguish for a lady, and that a military-style duffel bag or rucksack is more becoming for a gentleman. Those of us who realise this have been polythene-neutral for decades.
Finally, there's that old chestnut, the bicycle. In London, where I live, the mayor has taken to slapping up giant posters (at a considerable cost in CO2, I imagine) telling me that "It's better by bike". The other day, a newspaper interviewer, talking to me about the future of the car, asked: "What about bicycles?" Do these people imagine we have never heard of bicycles? Or that we have no idea what they're good for? I haven't been without one since I was three, and I still use one regularly. There are few things I find more galling than to be confronted by a man who bought a bicycle last week and now harangues me about their benefits, as if the bloody thing has only just been invented and no one else has quite cottoned on to it yet.
When I cycle down to the end of my road en route to the local greengrocers with my reusable duffel bag, I don't need a poster to tell me I'm doing the sensible thing. I've known it for years. Similarly, if I turn out of the road in my car heading for Scotland, there's no point trying to convince me I'd be better off going on a bicycle, because I've done that and I can assure you it's not true.
Environmentalists, stop treating us like idiots. The rest of you, relax. It's OK to own a car."
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Its like a virus this anti-car propaganda crap, they should just have congestion charges for congested areas and be done with it.
The same guy that published the road pricing report proposed a huge expansion of heathrow in the very same report. Planes are the real polluters not the cars but I suppose the airlines have power and influence and the tax payers have the goverment lol. Sucide rates fell by 30% after the catalyst was introduced on cars, their not that bad on the environment.
The same guy that published the road pricing report proposed a huge expansion of heathrow in the very same report. Planes are the real polluters not the cars but I suppose the airlines have power and influence and the tax payers have the goverment lol. Sucide rates fell by 30% after the catalyst was introduced on cars, their not that bad on the environment.
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,346
Likes: 0
From: Suffolk
Agree with all. But we know that we are an apathetic lot and will sit by and let it happen. Moan lots and do nothing. The government know this so feel confident that they can push pretty much anything through.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,112
Likes: 2
From: Banbury, Oxfordshire
I think we should all vote for James May.
I don't understand why the ecomentalists are so keen on public transport as an alternative. Go stand next to a train in a station whilst it waits with it's engines running and there's loads of diesel fumes being chucked out into the atmosphere. And that's just at idle.
At best trains and busses are less bad when they're carrying a significant number of people, but to maintain any kind of regular service (which they need to do to become an alternative), then they need to run through the day rather than just at peak hours, and that means they're going to be mostly empty most of the time.
I think it's clear that if the congestion isn't enough to put people off using their cars, and the 200 odd percent fuel tax isn't enough, then congestion charging isn't going to make a difference either. It's just another back door tax.
If they're really serious about reducing congestion and carbon emissions, they should be encouraging businesses to use technology to let people work at home more, or closer to home, or work more flexible hours to avoid rush hour. They could do that with tax breaks for business, rather than loading extra tax onto the extra workers that feel they have no alternative.
I don't understand why the ecomentalists are so keen on public transport as an alternative. Go stand next to a train in a station whilst it waits with it's engines running and there's loads of diesel fumes being chucked out into the atmosphere. And that's just at idle.
At best trains and busses are less bad when they're carrying a significant number of people, but to maintain any kind of regular service (which they need to do to become an alternative), then they need to run through the day rather than just at peak hours, and that means they're going to be mostly empty most of the time.
I think it's clear that if the congestion isn't enough to put people off using their cars, and the 200 odd percent fuel tax isn't enough, then congestion charging isn't going to make a difference either. It's just another back door tax.
If they're really serious about reducing congestion and carbon emissions, they should be encouraging businesses to use technology to let people work at home more, or closer to home, or work more flexible hours to avoid rush hour. They could do that with tax breaks for business, rather than loading extra tax onto the extra workers that feel they have no alternative.