|
Perhaps one of the things we should be looking at is what makes people such as this particular character develop such an apparently single-minded hatred of cars and with it, by inference, the people who drive them or who are carried as passengers?
|
Stuart, I don't see any hatred of cars in what Prof Begg proposes. On a purely rational basis, anyone who uses cars would support proposals such as this which make the roads more efficient without making them more dangerous, but I've never been persuaded that those who love cars are throughly rational about it! (If they were, the cars in use would be very different to the current mix of vehicles on the roads)
So it doesn't surprise me that a rational plan to improve efficiency gets interpreted as hatred.
|
Since today we pay tax via the petrol pump there is a disincentive to have a gas guzzler, if in future I pay per mile regardless of the size of my car I may as well have a gas guzzler cos fuel is going to cost less.
Or maybe being a cynic what "being revenue" neutral" usually means is "pay more" in "GovSpeak"
Prof Begg may be a very nice man to know personally but whoever's pulling his strings is doing no him no favours.
SIMONJL
|
Since today we pay tax via the petrol pump there is a disincentive to have a gas guzzler, if in future I pay per mile regardless of the size of my car I may as well have a gas guzzler cos fuel is going to cost less.
The proposal was not to abolish fuel duty, just to reduce it. The incentive to drive an economical car would be reduced a bit, but not removed. (I'd prefer no cut in the fuel duty, but that ain't the proposal)
|
|
|
|
I've never been persuaded that those who love cars are throughly rational about it! (If they were, the cars in use would be very different to the current mix of vehicles on the roads)
That would of course depend on what it is exactly that they love about cars.
|
Such a plan will have no chance of working, if businesses are not able/willing to move away from 9 to 5 working. An awful lot of people are still tied to these hours of work, which is what causes the worst of the congestion each working day. Businesses have to be able to give people a choice of working hours, otherwise any such plan would basically penalise those people with no choice.
Personally, I am glad that I am retired, so that I can do as little driving as possible. When I see the traffic on the M1 around junction 24 at peak times, I am just relieved that I am not stuck in it 5 days week any longer.
|
|
|
|
Stuart, I don't see any hatred of cars in what Prof Begg proposes.
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
On a purely rational basis,
i.e, one that matches your own
anyone who uses cars would support proposals such as this which make the roads more efficient without making them more dangerous
Just had a look through my Roget's and failed to find the link between "efficient" and "expensive", but the more I listen to Gordon Brown, the more I realise how out of date my thesaurus is.
but I've never been persuaded
Well I agree with that :)
that those who love cars are throughly rational about it!
Oh, you hadn't finished :(
(If they were, the cars in use would be very different to the current mix of vehicles on the roads)
So is it the Smart or the Micra that you propose we all have? Sorry, I've forgotten in all my passion over my Alfa.
So it doesn't surprise me that a rational plan to improve efficiency gets interpreted as hatred.
A thoroughly single agenda, single minded proposal presented as reason. Again. Goodness me, do you ever get tired?
|
>> anyone who uses cars >> would support proposals such as this which make the roads more >> efficient without making them more dangerous Just had a look through my Roget's and failed to find the link between "efficient" and "expensive", but the more I listen to Gordon Brown, the more I realise how out of date my thesaurus is.
Do you think that public transport is wrong to charge more at peak hours? Or that hotels should stop charging more in the high season?
"Expensive at peak times" is a principle which many businesses use to maximise the efficient use of resources. Demand management by price is an common part of business practice where capacity is limited, as it is both in hotels and on the roads.
This proposal is not to make everything more expensive: it is to rebalance the pricing. You may choose to read the propsal as "more expensive for everything", but that ain't what it says.
>> (If they were, the cars in use would be very different >> to the current mix of vehicles on the roads)
So is it the Smart or the Micra that you propose we all have?
Neither.
A thoroughly single agenda, single minded proposal presented as reason. Again. Goodness me, do you ever get tired?
Tired? Frequently :)
But I remain fascinated. I don't actually support this particular charging proposal of Begg's, but it's an interesting idea to apply a market solution to solve congestion. Maybe it's the right idea, maybe not, but it is a rational proposal: if he's right, it will make car journeys easier.
That's why I was disappointed (but not surprised) to see the assumption that Begg has a "hatred" of cars. If he hated them, he wouldn't have made this proposal!
|
|
|
>> but I've never been persuaded
Well I agree with that :)
that those who love cars are throughly rational about it!
Oh, you hadn't finished :(
ROFLMAO....!
NoWheels, this plan is silly because:
(i) it is based on an assumption by Begg that we will avoid congestion if we are somehow deterred from adding to it. What he doesn't realise is that
WE ALREADY HATE TRAFFIC JAMS!!!!!
We are not silly little toddlers who get to the M25 every morning and think "Gosh - it's busy! I would never have guessed" We do not have to be told off for getting stuck in one. If we could travel at a different time, we would already be doing so purely in order to avoid the congestion, regardless of the price.
and
(ii) The economic problem with congestion is that it imposes costs on businesses, in that people can't get there on time, either to work, to shop, or to do deals. Thus, charging them is not a solution. At best, it will change that cost from an invisible to a visible cost. At worst, it will add a visible cost to the invisible one.
|
Applying Begg's logic to trains, these are overcrowded (to say the least) during rush hours.
Logically, rush hour tickets should be more expensive than off-peak, but what do we do, we sell season tickets at a discounted price.
This simply encourages people to commute from ridiculous distances and makes the overcrowding worse.
Seems inconsistent with the road pricing proposals!
|
|
|
NoWheels, this plan is silly because: (i) it is based on an assumption by Begg that we will avoid congestion if we are somehow deterred from adding to it. What he doesn't realise is that WE ALREADY HATE TRAFFIC JAMS!!!!!
Up to a point. The extra cost could be factor in persuading some people to readjust their timetables, and the research behind the proposal found that 30% of ppl (I think it was 30%, may have the figure wrong) would be deterred by the cost.
We also hate overcrowded trains: are you arguing that trains should stop charging more at peak times?
(ii) The economic problem with congestion is that it imposes costs on businesses, in that people can't get there on time, either to work, to shop, or to do deals.
As I replied to NoDosh, I don't actually support this idea. But if the charge reduces congestion, then it reduces those other costs on business which you rightly mention ... so it would offset one cost with another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
