I don't interpret 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' as a prophecy. I think it was a warning, based on actual totalitarian states. I don't think ID cards are going to produce a Big Brother state, but I'm still against them. If we don't resist such encroaches into civil liberties now, when we are faced with a Big Brother state it will be too late to resist. As one pastor said during the holocaust: "First they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out. Then they came for the communists, but I did not speak out. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I did not speak out. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Thats it.. i knew it was something like that. Just whack some kind of 'tachometer recording device' or retro-fit a circuit in the car 555 . I am sure it would be a expensive thing to do. Though some type of device has to be put in each car anyway .. This could be it ? no satelite tracking nonsense no liberties infringed etc etc just post a monthly or 6 monthly reading. They have more sophisticated equipment and systems in place to record how much gas or electricity we use (for crying out loud ). They could even give us a card like energy companys do to send readings and pay for useage...It would not be terribly difficult even mobile phone operators have access to the same types of systems . Those lovely pastors, they always have somthing earnest to say.. always forgeting there own ineptitudes and iron grip they have over countless millions of people.. infringing on more civil liberties than some ID card or 'tracking device' ..
But this entirely fails to deal with the congestion issue... the system is not designed simply to cut down on how much people drive, but where people drive. Perhaps a more sensible approach given all the concerns raised here would be some directly-imposed tax on the actual amount of pollution you create (worked out according to miles driven and how polluting your engine is) coupled with more widespread congestion charging on the London model in all city centres and congested routes.
That could be incoporated into the equation.. I was not wishing to tackle the whole issue, i thought i was getting a little carried away so i stopped . Good idea.. How that would go down with the driving public is another matter.
'unnecessary car use' mmmmm My list for that is long. I catch the bus, i don't have a drivers mentality.. I realy don't know how to change the mindset of the 'average driver'.
is everyone forgetting the one crucial factor here? If the goverment encouraged more green fuels like extremely low tax or even no tax on fuels like biodiesel, vegetable oil etc. They could encourage people to pay the reletively low price to convert their cars to run with hardly no pollution whatsoever. The notion to pursuede people to use their cars less is pointless, especially in this commuter-common country where the average person lives about 15-20 miles from work (not actual figure but sounds about right). Public transport is non existant, especially in more rural areas like East Anglia. People will just pay the higher price and its not the rich or the really poor that suffer, its the hard working lower middle classes that will suffer, the people who have nice things sure, but have no extra money besides... As one of those family members, i have to say that i don't approve of this approach to tackling pollution, i would prefer a change of fuels to take us gradually away from petrol and fossil fuels. What will all the money from the tolls go to? I am guessing it won't go back into the roads again, probably to fund the enormous costs of more nanny state technology such as the car tracking and I.D card schemes.
As with any other form of fixed amount road taxation, the poorer ordinary working people will be hardest hit whilst the wealthy, the middle classes and businessmen can carry on swanning around without being affected. Who said that the labour party hadn't sold out the working classes?
Whilst that might be partially true, the lowest of the working classes will be ok, cos most can't afford cars and those that can, have benefits that more than likely can afford to pay for them. Then u got the upper lower classes and the lower middle classes, different names but effectively the same incomes, just different jobs. Working classes may get council houses, middle classes might be paying a morgage, but both end up with same amounts roughly. Its is these groups that will suffer and typically for me i am slap-bang in the middle of it. I drive 35miles to college, the only way is 25miles on an A road (apparently about £1 a mile under new scheme) and the rest on a B (50p a mile?) that means that both ways would cost me over 3 days a week: £90 a week (not including petrol), students, elderly, low income families, small businesses, haulage firms, etc etc the list of effected people goes on.
Public transport is not non-existent ... in every city we have at least a viable public transport network, while in some places it is excellent. It isn't perfect by a long way, but people who glibly say that public transport is not viable are simply fundamentally wrong. The countryside is a different matter of course, but most unnecessary car use (almost by definition) takes place within urban areas and it's this which need to be tackled. You're right that the green fuels issue is something which is missing from this debate, but quite apart from the pollution issue there is an issue of increasing numbers of cars on the road causing congestion and making cities even more unpleasant places to be. Encouraging widespread use of mass transit systems and discouraging personal transport where its use is irresponsible and unnecessary is the only way to tackle this problem. I see no problem with making those who can afford to use private transport in urban areas or congested routes - such as businesses and rich people - pay for the privelege thereby subsidising mass transit for the rest of us. These people would also get the benefit of less congested roads, while we could funnel this tax on their irresponsible car use into making public transport cheap and efficient. You could even make the case that this is a redistributive measure, with the rich subsidising more responsible transport systems for the rest of society. If anyone can think of a way to cut down on unnecessary car use without targetting those who actually use their cars irresponsibly (like driving in cities) then I'd like to hear it.
London is something like 35 miles across and the public transport system is unreliable, slow, expensive and unsafe. It's almost only ever country dwellers or people who can't drive who say that private transport in cities is irresponsible
I am neither; I also think it's the general consensus among those who are interested in the environmental concerns surrounding this issue that current and rising levels of car usage in heavily congested areas are unsustainable and that something needs to be done about it.
Actually, that depends how you define 'work'. But that's another story. I also lived in Bristol for two years commuting to college four days a week with no need for a vehicle. I'm not saying public transport in cities is perfect, but I always found it sufficient. On the odd occasion that it wasn't, there was always a taxi to fill the gap.
Showmet was right, i was being a tad vague when i said that public transport was non-existant. But i stand by the fact that here in East Anglia which unlike pretty much the rest of England at least, has no motorways, no really big cities or commuter areas as such (with the exception of Essex, but is that part of East Anglia?), But its public transport is one of the worst i seen, compared to other areas in England. Whilst East Anglia is not renowned for having bad congestion (although the orwell bridge and Norwich ring roads might suggest otherwise), it does have an extremely large amount of haulage firms and warehouses so its pollution is actually quite severe. Countryside people like myself need their cars, no denying that, but i agree that if people were to stop using their cars, they need to have public transport that picks them up and drops them off at exactly at the right times and points and as frequently as possible. Another factor is that people are far too lazy and socially retardant these days, choosing to spend most of their day by themselves in their cars listening to the radio than going on a bus and interacting with the rest of society. Take for instance the fact that many people don't even talk to their nextdoor neighbours anymore, some don't even know WHO lives next to them. Also with the trend now to have nice cars and fast cars (as highlighted on everyones favourite motoring show TOP GEAR) people use them as a competition and a basis to tell peoples roles in society without actually speaking a word to one another. Personally i think this is the biggest problem: NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY U CHARGE PEOPLE FOR USING THEIR CARS, THEY EFFECTIVELY WILL JUST KEEP USING THEM, OR VOTE FOR A GOVERNMENT WHO WILL LET THEM.
I agree that this is a massive part of the problem. As a society, we have an on-going love-affair with the car that really needs to end. PArt of it's selfish - the desire to cocoon ourselves in our own little world - but part of it's also the increasingly unpleasant nature of society. I remember a while back when I was in Liverpool, on the bus with my mum, some snotty little scally started casting insults her way, just loud enough to be heard. I had to get up, go to the back of the bus, and threaten to put his head through the fucking window in order to shut him up Not the kind of experience you want on your average journey though, is it? In reality, I expect all these things feed one another - society sucks, so we drive everywhere, so we never talk to anyone and society sucks harder, because society sucks harder we use public transport even less... etc etc etc. Let's face it, it's one big, ugly roundabout, and it's gonna take something pretty radical to stop it spinning faster and faster.
I guess ... I think that being from London makes me biased in some ways ... The whole size of London makes it a completely different issue from most other major cities. I suppose statistics can be manipulated and I might be wrong but I've always believed that only 5% of world pollution is caused by car engines and the rest is down to industry. The thing is ... I like the freedom that driving gives me. For instance, I can take a trip to the supermarket, stock up for a week and drive home without the hassle of carrying 10 bags on public transport and then getting to my front door. So do I stop using the supermarket or stay indoors and pay more to get everything delivered? I might want to go elsewhere ... with public transport I have to get to the station/bus stop or whatever and then wait, I might have to deal with noise, a drunk, graffiti, smells, potential muggings and a longer more expensive journey. Then when I get to my destination I still have to brave the elements to get to my front door ... Sorry but I'll opt for my own personal space please ... especially my campervan which can take me anywhere I choose to go and I can stop there as long as I like. I guess I could cycle but then I'm stinking of sweat when I arrive, no good if it's a night out ... or I could always get ripped off by a cab driver ... but why should I when I can park outside, save money and have it waiting for me when it's time to go? The thing is ... cities have always been congested. Even if we all reverted to horse drawn carriages there would still be traffic. That is because there are no attractive alternatives. Public transport has never been able to compete ... even if buses had private cubicles you'd still have to get to and from the station/stop. In my opinion personal transport is a good thing, your own space on the move is enjoyable and quicker than most alternatives ... so what needs to be addressed is how we make it safer and more useful. Making it more expensive has never worked so perhaps finding alternative fuels are the only way forward
Paul, I agree with absolutely everything that you're saying. I love using my car. It's fucking ace. But the thing is, there's two serious problems with the solution that you propose (much as I wish it weren't so). Firstly, there's no sign of any viable alternative to oil on the horizon. Period. I mean there's fuel cells, but most analysts believe that they're still at least 20 years from being able to replace oil... and even then, they're still just displacing pollution and oil dependency. The fuel cells still take oil to produce. But still... you could be optimistic and argue that this is still a problem that's surmountable by technology, but that still leaves you with the real big 'un..... we're running out of space. We can't just carry on building more roads indefinitely. For all the reasons you mention, personal transport is the hound's hairy gonads. But the trouble is, it's so fucking top banana that everyone wants in on the action. We all want cars. And their just isn't the space on the roads for them. Traffic congestion will ultimately lead to gridlock, and then we're fucked. Personal car ownership is, basically, a dead-end dream that ain't got a future. It's unviable as a long-term transport strategy. The only way I see it being anything like feasible is if we have massive investment in public transport to seduce people out of their cars as much as possible. And I doubt that's ever gonna happen.
I have to agree. I'd much rather drive 25mins to work than take an arduous / dangerours train, bus and walking adventure each morning and evening.... ... but, we can't go on like this. Something needs to be done about the polution and conjestion. It's great the debate has started going now and hopefully we'll come up with some workable solutions. ecologically sound fuel alternatives are one idea but public transport has to get major investment and subsidies to make it a viable and safe mode of travel for us. I can't think of anyway round the fact that I need to use a car to get to site visits / meetings throughout my working week... ecologically sound fuel would be the only idea I could come up with there to minimise impact. Otherwise, if the public transport was efficient and safe I would happily put myself out of my way a little for the good of the environment... I guess we have to start getting less selfish... We may lose precious time out of our day getting around but the benefits on the whole would be worth it... well we won't have the choice before long... if Blair dosn't get us the environment will
