Fooling the Congestion Charge cameras
The Older Gentleman
Any ideas?
--
XJ900S 750SS SR500 CB400F Z400 ST70 GAGARPHOF#30
GHPOTHUF#1 WUSS#5 YTC#3 IHABWTJ#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 OSOS#1
BOF#30 www.btinternet.com/~Chateau.Murray/homepage2.html
Timo Geusch
> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Any ideas?
Arab numberplates? CC/CD numberplates?
--
Timo Geusch
BMW R50/5 | BMW R100GS | Moto Morini Corsaro 125 | CB750/4 K2 | Bimota YB7
BOTAFOF #33
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmfaq1.html
wessie
news:1fq8ls0.h0...@dial81-135-31-17.in-addr.btopenworld.com:
> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Any ideas?
>
dynamite
--
wes...@ukrm.newt
BMW R1150GS
StevenM
"The Older Gentleman" <chateau...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1fq8ls0.h0...@dial81-135-31-17.in-addr.btopenworld.com...
> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Any ideas?
Don't put a number plate on the front of your bike?
--
Steven M
YZFR6, S2000
BOTAFOF/T #10
sweller
> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Any ideas?
Catch the train.
--
Simon
Brighton
England
MYSOB: www.sweller.co.uk/sob/
MZSOB: www.mztech.fsnet.co.uk/
The Older Gentleman
> chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
> >OK, what's the best way to do it?
> >
> >Any ideas?
>
> Well, it doesn't apply to motorcycles...
>
> Fake number plates. Got to be. Use ones from a car of the same
> make, model and colour.
I was thinking that. Only it's not so easy to get plates made up now,
and anything home-made will be an instant rozzer magnet.
Sherilyn
> chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
> >OK, what's the best way to do it?
> >
> >Any ideas?
>
> Well, it doesn't apply to motorcycles...
>
> Fake number plates. Got to be. Use ones from a car of the same
> make, model and colour.
>
Illegal.
--
Sherilyn
The Older Gentleman
Dynamic
"sweller" <n...@mztech.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns931FE4C1483...@130.133.1.4...
> The Older Gentleman wrote
>
> > OK, what's the best way to do it?
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> Catch the train.
>
Your one of them aren't you? Government scum.
;-)
--
Dynamic
ZZR 250 - Coming soon
TZR 125 - Don't ask
VF 500 - In bits
CG fieldbike <Makes Sign of Holy Pushrods> - Long dead (Still got the engine
though).
Ben Blaney
>OK, what's the best way to do it?
Is this for a letter to The Times, or your Bike column, or something
else?
--
Ben Blaney
GSF1200 (needs attention) CBR600 CD200
"We stopped only for fuel"
Paul - xxx
news:1fq8ls0.h0...@dial81-135-31-17.in-addr.btopenworld.com...
>
> Any ideas?
Don't go into London .. it's quite easy .. ;)
--
...................................Paul-xxx
Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
The Older Gentleman
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
> >OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Is this for a letter to The Times, or your Bike column, or something
> else?
Heh. Just ruminating.
curium
news:1fq8ls0.h0...@dial81-135-31-17.in-addr.btopenworld.com...
:
: Any ideas?
:
just use the bike. they go for free.
--
curium
CG125[1]
[1]Makes Sign Of Holy Pushrods.
Sherilyn
> Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>
> > hu...@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:
> >
> > > chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
> > > >OK, what's the best way to do it?
> > > >
> > > >Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Well, it doesn't apply to motorcycles...
> > >
> > > Fake number plates. Got to be. Use ones from a car of the same
> > > make, model and colour.
> > >
> > Illegal.
>
> Give the monkey a coconut!
>
> And?
Then what's the point?
--
Sherilyn
Chris Jones
> make, model and colour.
This could actually turn out to be quite a serious problem. At the moment
most people have their real plates on their cars - why not, after all. But
it could lead to much wider problems for the police if swapping plates
becomes common pratice.
The other option of course is to remove your front plate and leave your back
one on, since I think the cameras are all forwards-facing with their plate
reading. That way, if a copper happens to be behind you in traffic they
won't know anything's up.
BigJ
wrote:
and your point is what exactly
Or are you perferct in every way ?
Fuck off back to UK transport
--
BigJ ZX6R in sparkly Silver (cos they're faster)
www.mjkleathers.com
The UKRM CBT http://ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
BigJ
wrote:
You really are a thick cunt aren't you if you don't understand the
point.
Best not to fuck with the big boys eh
Ginge
> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Any ideas?
Dress up as Ronald McDonald.
It won't fool the cameras, but you'll look bloody stupid and passers by
may want to punch you, which has to be worth something purely as
entertainment value.
--
ginge [at] stopthevoices.org.uk - Kawasaki ZRX 1200R, Yamaha SZR 660
Ben Blaney
>The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
>> Any ideas?
>
>Dress up as Ronald McDonald.
>
>It won't fool the cameras, but you'll look bloody stupid and passers by
>may want to punch you
And how will that be a novelty for TOG?
Ginge
> Ginge wrote:
>
> >The Older Gentleman wrote:
> >
> >> Any ideas?
> >
> >Dress up as Ronald McDonald.
> >
> >It won't fool the cameras, but you'll look bloody stupid and passers by
> >may want to punch you
>
> And how will that be a novelty for TOG?
A) He can blame the make-up.
B) He may look _slightly_ less smug.
nightjar
"The Older Gentleman" <chateau...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1fq8ls0.h0...@dial81-135-31-17.in-addr.btopenworld.com...
>
> Any ideas?
German number plates. They cannot be traced back to the owner just from the
number.
Colin Bignell
Richard
news:b2bt7d$7a0$6...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >Any ideas?
>
>
> Fake number plates. Got to be. Use ones from a car of the same
> make, model and colour.
If it's a completely automated system,
then stick a valid bike number plate on your car.
That way it'll scan it, check it against the database and see it's a bike.
Richard
> The Older Gentleman wrote
>
> > OK, what's the best way to do it?
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> Catch the train.
While it's still such a small area of London,
park just outside and hop on your micro scooter. ;-)
Platypus
>
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
> > OK, what's the best way to do it?
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> Dress up as Ronald McDonald.
I thought he lost the tartan whistle a couple of years ago?
--
Platypus
A shrewd and cruel man.
VN800 Drifter Ain't no drag
R80RT Papa's got a brand new bag
Ironmongery in Preparation...
DIAABTCOD#2 GPOTHUF#19 BOTAFOS#6
BOTAFOT#89 BOB#1 SBS#35
"the mechanised hum of another world"
Alasdair Baxter
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>I was thinking that. Only it's not so easy to get plates made up now,
>and anything home-made will be an instant rozzer magnet.
You can buy a machine to make them----Not very expensive.
As far as I know there is nothing illegal in having many number plates
on your car so long as one is the correct one!
You could always try registering the car in the name of Thomas Cat, a
well known pest control executive of this parish.
--
Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263
"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"
Alasdair Baxter
<news.ri...@SPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
>While it's still such a small area of London,
>park just outside and hop on your micro scooter. ;-)
Why don't we petition for small electric scooters to be made legal?
Alasdair Baxter
<cur...@NOSPAMbarrysworldSAYNO2SPAM.com> wrote:
>just use the bike. they go for free.
Too much like hard work!
Alasdair Baxter
>German number plates. They cannot be traced back to the owner just from the
>number.
Why is that?
Bear
wibbled ...
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:34:12 -0000, <nightjar> wrote:
>
> >German number plates. They cannot be traced back to the owner just from the
> >number.
>
> Why is that?
*VEE* vil ask der kvestions!
--
Bear
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Bears
"All the gear ... no idea!"
Bear's Current Paw Track: U2 "Elevation (Tomb Raider remix)"
Sean Doherty
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
>Any ideas?
Don't pay the charge and pay the GBP 80 fine instead.
HTH.
--
sean doherty
b12 | cogito ergo zoom
s e a n @ l i l a c t h u r s d a y . c o m
sweller
>>just use the bike. they go for free.
>
> Too much like hard work!
>
..and what is so difficult about a *motor*cycle?
--
Simon
Brighton
England
MYSOB: www.sweller.co.uk/sob/
MZSOB: www.mztech.fsnet.co.uk/
The Older Gentleman
> As far as I know there is nothing illegal in having many number plates
> on your car so long as one is the correct one!
Now *that* is an interesting idea.
The Older Gentleman
> On 11 Feb 2003 22:59:34 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
> >
> >> Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > hu...@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:
> >> >
> >> > > chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
> >> > > >OK, what's the best way to do it?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Any ideas?
> >> > >
> >> > > Well, it doesn't apply to motorcycles...
> >> > >
> >> > > Fake number plates. Got to be. Use ones from a car of the same
> >> > > make, model and colour.
> >> > >
> >> > Illegal.
> >>
> >> Give the monkey a coconut!
> >>
> >> And?
> >
> >Then what's the point?
>
>
> You really are a thick cunt aren't you if you don't understand the
> point.
>
> Best not to fuck with the big boys eh
Pssssttt! BigJ. It's another wee little trolly-wolly.
The Older Gentleman
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:00:05 -0000, "Richard"
> <news.ri...@SPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >While it's still such a small area of London,
> >park just outside and hop on your micro scooter. ;-)
>
> Why don't we petition for small electric scooters to be made legal?
They are.
The Older Gentleman
Oooh, *nice* idea. Hey, I think my Dax has just doubled in value.
The Older Gentleman
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:34:12 -0000, <nightjar> wrote:
>
> >German number plates. They cannot be traced back to the owner just from the
> >number.
>
> Why is that?
Given zer famous Cherman efficiency, ja, und der Vaterland's passion for
zer records keeping, ich finden zis to believe sehr hard.
In fact, ich am tinking zat ein load of gerbollocks ist.
sweller
>> >OK, what's the best way to do it?
>>
>> Is this for a letter to The Times, or your Bike column, or something
>> else?
>
> Heh. Just ruminating.
The Times in which your letter appeared had a piece on avoiding the CC.
IIRC it said that cloned plates could be spotted (mainly by the shocked
response of the real owner on receipt of bills). They would be able to
track your route and have plod lie in wait. Unless you changed plates
every day and varied your route sufficiently you'd eventually get
caught and hammered for the costs.
There is also the owner of the real plates to be considered. If they
turn out to be 'of interest' then plod are going to be interested in
stopping you as much as possible.
And what do you do if you get a producer, accident etc. on the false
plates?
The recognition system appears a lot more advanced than speed cameras
and blue route master thingies.
nightjar
"Alasdair Baxter" <l...@london.com> wrote in message
news:jnbj4v4q0tilml1r3...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:34:12 -0000, <nightjar> wrote:
>
> >German number plates. They cannot be traced back to the owner just from
the
> >number.
>
> Why is that?
Apparently, neither Germany nor Denmark feels the need to supply that
information. France will, but only at such a high cost that it won't be
worth chasing the occasional tourist for the fines.
Colin Bignell
Sherilyn
> On 11 Feb 2003 22:39:17 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >hu...@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:
> >
> >> chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
> >> >OK, what's the best way to do it?
> >> >
> >> >Any ideas?
> >>
> >> Well, it doesn't apply to motorcycles...
> >>
> >> Fake number plates. Got to be. Use ones from a car of the same
> >> make, model and colour.
> >>
> >Illegal.
>
>
> and your point is what exactly
>
> Or are you perferct in every way ?
No, but I don't go out of my way to disobey the law.
>
> Fuck off back to UK transport
You are posting on uk.transport.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> On 11 Feb 2003 22:59:34 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
> >
> >> Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > hu...@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:
> >> >
> >> > > chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
> >> > > >OK, what's the best way to do it?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Any ideas?
> >> > >
> >> > > Well, it doesn't apply to motorcycles...
> >> > >
> >> > > Fake number plates. Got to be. Use ones from a car of the same
> >> > > make, model and colour.
> >> > >
> >> > Illegal.
> >>
> >> Give the monkey a coconut!
> >>
> >> And?
> >
> >Then what's the point?
>
>
> You really are a thick cunt aren't you if you don't understand the
> point.
Indeed I must be a very thick cunt, because for the life of me I
cannot understand why anyone would openly discuss strategies for
disobeying the law. You might as well hang a big sign around your
neck saying 'wannabe criminal'.
>
> Best not to fuck with the big boys eh
>
[Yawn]
--
Sherilyn
tuscaneer
"The Older Gentleman" <chateau...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1fq8ls0.h0...@dial81-135-31-17.in-addr.btopenworld.com...
>
> Any ideas?
Easy.
Either get an old number plate & hang it round your neck, or (maybe) get
t-shirts & jackets printed with random number plates.
Walk across the boundary
Get 10,000 of your closest friends to do the same
Wait for 10,000 of irate residents of the Scilly Isles or Aberdeen to
complain per day about £80 fines, when they've never driven in London
Watch the system collapse under the additional adminstrative burden of
requiring human-based verification that a camera-read number plate is
actually attached to a vehicle, or wait for a year for Capita to develop the
necessary visual processing software to discriminate between an HGV and Mrs
Miggins' coat.
Tuscaneer
darsy
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>OK, what's the best way to do it?
riding a motorbike, you thick cunt ;-)
--
darsy
cd200|r30|cbr900rr-y|r65ls - ukrm.net
MrBitsy
"BigJ" <bigjn...@ukrm.net> wrote in message
news:8u0j4vshder7q8jca...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Feb 2003 22:59:34 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
> >
> >> Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > hu...@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:
> >> >
> >> > > chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Well, it doesn't apply to motorcycles...
> >> > >
> >> > > Fake number plates. Got to be. Use ones from a car of the same
> >> > > make, model and colour.
> >> > >
> >> > Illegal.
> >>
> >> Give the monkey a coconut!
> >>
> >> And?
> >
> >Then what's the point?
>
>
> You really are a thick cunt aren't you if you don't understand the
> point.
>
>
numberplates.
Clever!
RayK
Paul - xxx
> Richard <news.ri...@SPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> "sweller" wrote...
>>> The Older Gentleman wrote
>>>
>>>> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Catch the train.
>>
>> While it's still such a small area of London,
>> park just outside and hop on your micro scooter. ;-)
>
> Oooh, *nice* idea. Hey, I think my Dax has just doubled in value.
You think ... Hah ...
--
...................................Paul-xxx
Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
Bagpuss
>OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
>Any ideas?
Relocate your company somewhere nice :-)
BigJ
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>BigJ <bigjn...@ukrm.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11 Feb 2003 22:59:34 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
>> >
>> >> Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > hu...@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> > > chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman) writes:
>> >> > > >OK, what's the best way to do it?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Any ideas?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Well, it doesn't apply to motorcycles...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Fake number plates. Got to be. Use ones from a car of the same
>> >> > > make, model and colour.
>> >> > >
>> >> > Illegal.
>> >>
>> >> Give the monkey a coconut!
>> >>
>> >> And?
>> >
>> >Then what's the point?
>>
>>
>> You really are a thick cunt aren't you if you don't understand the
>> point.
>>
>> Best not to fuck with the big boys eh
>
>Pssssttt! BigJ. It's another wee little trolly-wolly.
Sssh don't tell everyone
--
BigJ ZX6R in sparkly Silver (cos they're faster)
www.mjkleathers.com
The UKRM CBT http://ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
AnyOne ForAPint
news:1fq8ls0.h0...@dial81-135-31-17.in-addr.btopenworld.com...
>
> Any ideas?
Drive 1" from the guy in front (aka the norm).
Don't clean your car, ever (aka the norm)
Make sure the front plate was "accidently broken off minutes earlier" (aka
Champ)
Temporarily replace the number plate with cardboard one inlcuding bic biro
lettering (aka truck drivers)
Register your car to a PO Box number (only ever deal in cash)
Get Two Jags id including passport (as per recent documentary) and register
the car accordingly.
LCD screen over number plate which goes black at the touch of a button.
Thermite the camera poles (and a few Gatsos while you're at it)
There are many possible solutions, it just depends how illegal you want to
be.
Remember, you don't have to pay before you go in. You can pay
retrospectively. So if your idea fails (ie they have your plate recorded)
then just pay up and move onto another idea. Swot I'd do if I ever used a
cage in London.
--
AnyOne
Salt corroded FZS600 BOTAFOF#24 BOTAFOT#98
If I ignore that nasty rattle, do you think it will go away?
Don
chateau...@btinternet.com says...
>
>OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
>Any ideas?
>
Find a car that is registered, ideally similar make & colour to yours, make a
copy of the number plate and stick it on your vehicle. It'll show up on Ken
Livingstones computer as having paid the CC.
Be careful of parking on street as a traffic warden etc may notice plate & tax
disc don't match. If parking off street you might want to remove tax disc as a
precaution (you don't have to display it away from public highway)
Max fine for a dodgy number plate is a grand (no points), this is annual cost of
CC assuming you go in once a working day. So if you get caught less than once a
year your quids in.
YTC#1
> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Any ideas?
>
Walk
NM
> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Any ideas?
>
Use a foreign registered vehicle.
Ben Blaney
>There are many possible solutions, it just depends how illegal you want to
>be.
>
>Remember, you don't have to pay before you go in. You can pay
>retrospectively. So if your idea fails (ie they have your plate recorded)
>then just pay up and move onto another idea. Swot I'd do if I ever used a
>cage in London.
You'd commit quite serious crimes to avoid paying a five quid charge?
I just don't understand that.
There's only opposition to the CC because it's new. In 50 years people
won't bat an eyelid.
--
Ben Blaney
GSF1200 (needs attention) CBR600 CD200
"We stopped only for fuel"
NM
> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Any ideas?
>
Register you vehicle to a fictitious third party who 'lives' in a multi
occupancy house, make sure the house is far away from the place where
you normally park your vehicle, to confuse the tow it away Gestapo.
PeterT
news:MPG.18b3cde2f...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> In article <jnbj4v4q0tilml1r3...@4ax.com>, Alasdair Baxter
> wibbled ...
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:34:12 -0000, <nightjar> wrote:
> >
> > >German number plates. They cannot be traced back to the owner just from
the
> > >number.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> *VEE* vil ask der kvestions!
Impersonator, schweig! And trust me, it workz.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
PeterT
> Alasdair Baxter <l...@london.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:34:12 -0000, <nightjar> wrote:
> >
> > >German number plates. They cannot be traced back to the owner just from
the
> > >number.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
>
> Given zer famous Cherman efficiency, ja, und der Vaterland's passion for
> zer records keeping, ich finden zis to believe sehr hard.
>
> In fact, ich am tinking zat ein load of gerbollocks ist.
Actually not, as there is noe treaty to exchange vehicle ownership
information
on traffic offences.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
andrewr
<benb...@ukrm.net> writes:
<SNIP>
> There's only opposition to the CC because it's new. In 50 years people
> won't bat an eyelid.
An attitude that will reduce the population of the UK to a downtrodden mass
quicker than any other.
OK, our new policy of shooting speeding motorists and taking their assets may
seem harsh, but give it a hundred years and it will seem perfectly normal.
--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas), SKoGA KotL
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0,BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34
The speccy Geordie twat.
The Old Fogey
>
> If it's a completely automated system,
> then stick a valid bike number plate on your car.
> That way it'll scan it, check it against the database and see it's a bike.
Does the system check what the number is attached to?
While walking the dog I often find number plates which have fallen off
cars.
I thought it would be fun on my visits to London (by train) to take a few
plates in my bag and show them while walking past the cameras.
Roger.
AnyOne ForAPint
news:kv8k4vobmhie3r9gi...@4ax.com...
> AnyOne ForAPint wrote:
>
> >There are many possible solutions, it just depends how illegal you want
to
> >be.
> >
> >Remember, you don't have to pay before you go in. You can pay
> >retrospectively. So if your idea fails (ie they have your plate
recorded)
> >then just pay up and move onto another idea. Swot I'd do if I ever used
a
> >cage in London.
>
> You'd commit quite serious crimes to avoid paying a five quid charge?
No but I'd be prepared to bend the rules slightly
> I just don't understand that.
Just as I do everytime I see a while circle with a black line through it on
the backroads of Essex. Don't you?
> There's only opposition to the CC because it's new. In 50 years people
> won't bat an eyelid.
No, there's opposition because it's scam to increase tax on motorists.
Ben Blaney
>In article <kv8k4vobmhie3r9gi...@4ax.com>, Ben Blaney
><benb...@ukrm.net> writes:
>
>> There's only opposition to the CC because it's new. In 50 years people
>> won't bat an eyelid.
>
>An attitude that will reduce the population of the UK to a downtrodden mass
>quicker than any other.
I see your point, but I support the CC because I agree with what it is
trying to do. Something must be done about traffic in London.
>OK, our new policy of shooting speeding motorists and taking their assets may
>seem harsh, but give it a hundred years and it will seem perfectly normal.
Did you see my opposition to the legislation allowing the police to
impound people's vehicles when they "suspect" that those vehicles might
have been used in the course of unlawful business?
Not a million miles away from your satire.
The number of people here (ukrm) who said that they supported the
legislation because "we've got to do something about the burglars", etc
frankly worried me.
Ben Blaney
>"Ben Blaney" <benb...@ukrm.net> wrote in message
>news:kv8k4vobmhie3r9gi...@4ax.com...
>>
>> You'd commit quite serious crimes to avoid paying a five quid charge?
>
>No but I'd be prepared to bend the rules slightly
In your post at 10.09, you suggested illegally obtaining the deputy
prime minister's passport and registering your car to him.
That counts as "bending the rules slightly" in your world, does it?
>> I just don't understand that.
>
>Just as I do everytime I see a while circle with a black line through it on
>the backroads of Essex. Don't you?
I speed. What of it. I don't do it /to avoid paying a five quid
charge/. Don't confuse the two issues.
>> There's only opposition to the CC because it's new. In 50 years people
>> won't bat an eyelid.
>
>No, there's opposition because it's scam to increase tax on motorists.
Bollocks. It's an attempt to reduce congestion in London, you thick
cunt.
Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote in <1fq9bhw.1k7...@host213-122-121-194.in-addr.btopenworld.com>:
> Alasdair Baxter <l...@london.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:00:05 -0000, "Richard"
>> <news.ri...@SPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >While it's still such a small area of London,
>> >park just outside and hop on your micro scooter. ;-)
>> Why don't we petition for small electric scooters to be made legal?
> They are.
See article on electric bicycle in today's (electronic) Telegraph.
--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Eng., Brunel Uni. Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk
GSX600F, RG250WD. "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO# 003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Champ (deceased)
wrote:
>There's only opposition to the CC because it's new. In 50 years people
>won't bat an eyelid.
Quite.
I wonder what responses a thread entitled "How to fool the ticket
machines on the underground" would get.
--
Champ (deceased)
GSX-R 1000, GPz 750 turbo, ZXR750 Endurance Racer, ZX-7R Endurance Racer
GYASB#0 BotToS#2 BOTAFO(T|F)#35 UKRMFBC#2 IHABWTMMJ#3 MCT#5 WG*#1 BONY#40 DFV#8 IbW#17 SBS#34
Racing : www.team-ukrm.com. Vanity Publishing : www.champ.org.uk
andrewr
<benb...@ukrm.net> writes:
>
> andrewr wrote:
>
> >In article <kv8k4vobmhie3r9gi...@4ax.com>, Ben Blaney
> ><benb...@ukrm.net> writes:
> >
> >> There's only opposition to the CC because it's new. In 50 years people
> >> won't bat an eyelid.
> >
> >An attitude that will reduce the population of the UK to a downtrodden mass
> >quicker than any other.
>
> I see your point, but I support the CC because I agree with what it is
> trying to do. Something must be done about traffic in London.
That's fine, but that is your opinion of the matter. Other people may take
contrary views (I support yours by the way, what with London being 400 miles
away and all).
However, casting aside legitimate concerns by saying that it's just a fear of
change and that it will all be alright if we give it a chance will just leave
us lumbered with something that won't work for 50 years and then it'll be too
late to change it.
DazB
>
> I see your point, but I support the CC because I agree with what it is
> trying to do. Something must be done about traffic in London.
>
Everybody is in agreement that "something must be done about the traffic in
London" But another tax is NOT tackling the issue. It's the same old
government spout, they don't know or consider any option other than "Tax
it". Fag's, booze, it's really all the same. It's just token lip service.
And by increasing the cost, or taxing it, even if the problem doesn't go
away, they make money on it anyway!!
The thing that should really be done about the traffic in London, is to ban
vehicles altogether, and use public transport.
Of course, if public transport was good enough in the city, then everyone
would use it. So it's catch 22 really, the problem can be solved very
easily, but need "massive" investment, but no, Ken and his crony's don't
want to spend any money, but they're more than happy taking it!!
Another slant on this, is that old Comrade, Red Ken, promised to plough
_all_ the money made, back into public transport, and the like, to improve
things in the capital. He didn't mention the 260 odd Million UKP that would
be shelled out to a contracting company to administer this abhorrent scheme.
Now that, could be money well spent on public transport to help people that
need to travel in London.
I serious think that the majority of people would be too unhappy paying this
extra road tax, knowing that in the very near future there would be
improvements to public transport and thus release them from travelling by
car. But that will not be the case. No improvements in Transport will be
forthcoming from this tax. The poor motorist will just have one more burden
to carry, that in the main will be offset by the businesses in the capital.
Service company's that _have_ to bring vehicles into the city, will be
forced to increase their charges to cover, people who _have_ [1] to drive
into the capital for work will of course demand a higher salary to
compensate.
Just my tuppence worth.
[1] I personally feel that _nobody_ needs to drive into London for their
normal days work, they choose to because it's easier and a little more
comfortable than public transport. I never drive into London for any day
working. Sometimes I _have_ to drive into the capital when I'm working OOH's
as there is no way for me to get home (between 03:00 & 05:00) when the
trains stop!
<fx. climbs down from soap box >
--
>>> 0 <<<
DazB
FLHRCI -01 UK (Big Boy). Fat, Ugly, Loud & Slow.. Just like me :o)
BMW K75S -88 UK (ol' Girl). Slim, Ugly, Quiet and slow..Just like the missus
:o)
(Pull My Pud to reply)
William Grainger
Champ (deceased) <dead...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:39:09 +0000, Ben Blaney <benb...@ukrm.net>
>wrote:
>
>>There's only opposition to the CC because it's new. In 50 years people
>>won't bat an eyelid.
>
>Quite.
>
>I wonder what responses a thread entitled "How to fool the ticket
>machines on the underground" would get.
A date with Paul?
CT
> AnyOne ForAPint wrote:
[of congestion charge]
>
> >
> >No, there's opposition because it's scam to increase tax on motorists.
>
> Bollocks. It's an attempt to reduce congestion in London, you thick
> cunt.
>
I hate to agree with Jeremy Clarkson, but I really cannot see a fiver
detering many people from driving into London. The majority of those
that do either have no other choice, are on company business or do so
just because they can and a fiver on top of the cost of a day in the
NCP or feeding a meter is peanuts to them.
Where I work in the City, most vehicles I see are commercial, large
executive cars (Mercedes, Lexus, BMW etc.) or the Porsche/Ferrari
city boys. A fiver a day for the last two categories is not going
to be a deterrent IMHO. Now make the charge fifty quid a day and
you might get somewhere.
--
Chris
ZX-9R (in green, obviously) BOTAFOT#51
Ben
> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Any ideas?
Work somewhere other than London.
--
GSX-R750 DIAABTCOD#11 BOTAFOT#75 two#19 ICQ#73726000
"We take these risks, not to escape from life,
but to prevent life escaping from us."
******* replace 'spam' with 'ben' to reply *******
Ben Blaney
>However, casting aside legitimate concerns by saying that it's just a fear of
>change and that it will all be alright if we give it a chance will just leave
>us lumbered with something that won't work for 50 years and then it'll be too
>late to change it.
I realise that, and I wouldn't use that line on many issues.
I just find it pathetic that the middle classes are claiming to be
trying to "rebel" against the system (in reality, this one system) when
really they are just fucking tightwads with their heads buried in the
sand who don't want to pay a fiver to drive their car around.
Ben Blaney
>I hate to agree with Jeremy Clarkson, but I really cannot see a fiver
>detering many people from driving into London. The majority of those
>that do either have no other choice, are on company business or do so
>just because they can and a fiver on top of the cost of a day in the
>NCP or feeding a meter is peanuts to them.
Don't you see: it works either way.
If it does deter people, then the traffic improves.
If it doesn't deter people, then (a) the traffic stays fucking terrible
and (b) there's revenue which can be used to improve public transport.
After a period of this, the people stuck in the jams will realise that
there's a decent alternative and take it.
AnyOne ForAPint
news:b2dbvp$1a3bt4$1...@ID-155023.news.dfncis.de...
> "Ben Blaney" <benb...@ukrm.net> wrote in message
> news:7cbk4v0chktkdto43...@4ax.com...
> > AnyOne ForAPint wrote:
> [of congestion charge]
> >
> > >
> > >No, there's opposition because it's scam to increase tax on motorists.
> >
> > Bollocks. It's an attempt to reduce congestion in London, you thick
> > cunt.
> I hate to agree with Jeremy Clarkson, but I really cannot see a fiver
> detering many people from driving into London. The majority of those
> that do either have no other choice, are on company business or do so
> just because they can and a fiver on top of the cost of a day in the
> NCP or feeding a meter is peanuts to them.
*ding*
Everyone I've spoken who currently drives into London has said they'll just
ask for another 1500UKP + normal rise next pay negotiation to cover the
costs of paying this tax.
Now I agree something has to be done about the traffic cos quite frankly
it's beyond a joke. However this 5 quid per day is going to make about as
much difference as Gatsos make to road safety.
> Where I work in the City, most vehicles I see are commercial, large
> executive cars (Mercedes, Lexus, BMW etc.) or the Porsche/Ferrari
> city boys. A fiver a day for the last two categories is not going
> to be a deterrent IMHO. Now make the charge fifty quid a day and
> you might get somewhere.
The whole concept of charging people to drive into London won't IMHO work
unless you make it insanely expensive like 50-100 quid per day. There are
alternatives, but they *cost* money rather than *generate* revenue.
Ben Blaney
>Everybody is in agreement that "something must be done about the traffic in
>London" But another tax is NOT tackling the issue.
Well it is tackling the issue. Without the revenue from the CC -
*because* Tony Blair is controlling the budget for the GLA to try to
make Ken Livingstone look a fool; payback for Ken Livingstone winning
the election by a landslide, making a monkey out of Blair, Blair's
choice of candidate, etc - the GLA can't improve public transport.
>It's the same old
>government spout, they don't know or consider any option other than "Tax
>it". Fag's, booze, it's really all the same. It's just token lip service.
>And by increasing the cost, or taxing it, even if the problem doesn't go
>away, they make money on it anyway!!
This is tabloid quality debate, so I'll ignore it.
>The thing that should really be done about the traffic in London, is to ban
>vehicles altogether, and use public transport.
I'd support, in principle, a ban on cars in the CC zone. I practice, I
think it would create other problems.
The CC can't lose. It will raise money or it will reduce congestion.
>Of course, if public transport was good enough in the city, then everyone
>would use it. So it's catch 22 really, the problem can be solved very
>easily, but need "massive" investment, but no, Ken and his crony's don't
>want to spend any money, but they're more than happy taking it!!
Wrong. Ken Livingstone and the GLA *do* want to spend money.
>Another slant on this, is that old Comrade, Red Ken, promised to plough
>_all_ the money made, back into public transport, and the like, to improve
>things in the capital. He didn't mention the 260 odd Million UKP that would
>be shelled out to a contracting company to administer this abhorrent scheme.
He did mention it. Do you think a scheme like this can be implemented
for free? It's all costed out.
>No improvements in Transport will be forthcoming from this tax.
That remains to be seen. You are stating this as if it's a fact, which
it isn't.
>The poor motorist will just have one more burden
>to carry,
Fuck the poor motorist. I don't see why anyone *needs* to drive their
private car into the CC zone.
>Service company's that _have_ to bring vehicles into the city, will be
>forced to increase their charges to cover,
That's business. Get over it.
>people who _have_ [1] to drive
>into the capital for work will of course demand a higher salary to
>compensate.
I still can't think of any.
>[1] I personally feel that _nobody_ needs to drive into London for their
>normal days work,
Ah, and nor can you, but it hasn't stop you using the reason twice in
your rant about the wrongness of the CC.
> they choose to because it's easier and a little more
>comfortable than public transport.
I don't even really accept this. I've commuted by train and tube to
various places in London for work. Apart from delays - but I don't see
that the railways are to blame when some cunt throws themself on the
track in rush hour - I found it rather agreeable. Okay, the tube can be
overcrowded in the peak of the rush-hour, but that could be reduced
because far too many people realise that it's really not far to walk
between, say, Picadilly and Green Park. On the whole, though, I don't
mind commuting by train and tube. I can read a book, listen to the
radio, leer at women, and go to the pub after work.
>Sometimes I _have_ to drive into the capital when I'm working OOH's
>as there is no way for me to get home (between 03:00 & 05:00) when the
>trains stop!
What would they do if you didn't have a car?
Tell them they can either pay the CC for you, or get you a cab home.
Ben Blaney
>Everyone I've spoken who currently drives into London has said they'll just
>ask for another 1500UKP + normal rise next pay negotiation to cover the
>costs of paying this tax.
They won't get it if there's no benefit to the business.
What I'm saying is: they won't get it.
MrBitsy
"AnyOne ForAPint" <Any14aPi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2da63$1b3n84$1...@ID-75947.news.dfncis.de...
> "Ben Blaney" <benb...@ukrm.net> wrote in message
> news:kv8k4vobmhie3r9gi...@4ax.com...
> > AnyOne ForAPint wrote:
> >
>
> No, there's opposition because it's scam to increase tax on motorists.
>
be there.
RayK
CT
> CT wrote:
>
> >I hate to agree with Jeremy Clarkson, but I really cannot see a fiver
> >detering many people from driving into London. The majority of those
> >that do either have no other choice, are on company business or do so
> >just because they can and a fiver on top of the cost of a day in the
> >NCP or feeding a meter is peanuts to them.
>
> Don't you see: it works either way.
>
> If it does deter people, then the traffic improves.
>
> If it doesn't deter people, then (a) the traffic stays fucking terrible
> and (b) there's revenue which can be used to improve public transport.
> After a period of this, the people stuck in the jams will realise that
> there's a decent alternative and take it.
>
I can sort of see you point, but I really don't see the majority of the
people who currently drive into central London moving onto public transport
unless their current mode of travel because prohibitively expensive.
FWIW, I don't think these people drive in because public transport is crap,
it's more that they're the kind of people who are "above" using public
transport.
FortyEight16
> There are alternatives, but they *cost* money
> rather than *generate* revenue.
And where do you propose that money comes from? It sure as hell ain't going
to come from general taxation.
NM
>
> Fuck the poor motorist. I don't see why anyone *needs* to drive their
> private car into the CC zone.
>
Then you are a blinkered fool.
Bagpuss
wrote:
>AnyOne ForAPint wrote:
>
>>Everyone I've spoken who currently drives into London has said they'll just
>>ask for another 1500UKP + normal rise next pay negotiation to cover the
>>costs of paying this tax.
>
>They won't get it if there's no benefit to the business.
>
>What I'm saying is: they won't get it.
It they really want to reduce congestion around London that much,
give, say 10%-25% of the companies a FOAD subsidy to move to the
midlands & north. Of course the only problem there is loss of key
staff who don't want to move.
William Grainger
Give us a reason then, rather than just stating that we are wrong.
The list of exemptions and 100% discounts seems pretty inclusive
to me.
http://www.londontransport.co.uk/tfl/cc_fact_sheet_exemption_discount.shtml
NM
The fact that the traffic is there is an excuse to introduce, slowly at first,
a back door taxation scheme. If attention had been paid earlier using the funds
already generated then there would be little congestion.
The root of the problem is the politically correct doctrine that people should
be encouraged out of their cars, muppets in local government have been pushing
this flawed doctrine for thirty years or so.
If they had taken steps to embrace the car as the transport choice of the
people and made accommodation for it instead of trying to restrict then we
would not be even discussing congestion charges.
>
>
NM
Or possibly they could be servicing a business or home and need a van, a
plumber for example, or a shift worker in the entertainment or catering sector
who cannot get home after work by PT. Or ..... nurses....etc.etc.etc.
W K
"NM" <nik.m...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3E4A454...@chello.nl...
> Or possibly they could be servicing a business or home and need a van, a
> plumber for example
Plumbers? in london? Surely they'll just round it up to a tenner and
everyone they visit that day will have to pay a tenner each.
Steve Peake
news:1fq8ls0.h0...@dial81-135-31-17.in-addr.btopenworld.com...
> OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
> Any ideas?
As one of the newspapers suggested, pay by cheque. Totally legal, yet a
real bastard to deal with if loads of people do it.
Steve
Bagpuss
wrote:
So your best bet is to buy a 12 seater land rover with an approved LPG
conversion.
dwb
>
> I can sort of see you point, but I really don't see the majority of the
> people who currently drive into central London moving onto public
transport
> unless their current mode of travel because prohibitively expensive.
> FWIW, I don't think these people drive in because public transport is
crap,
> it's more that they're the kind of people who are "above" using public
> transport.
I thnk TFL have said that if £5 doesn't work, then they will raise it, and
keep raising it, until it does.
I also think ministers (the unimportant ones who no one's ever heard of)
should damn well be forced to pay the charge. I can understand the 'security
risk' to someone like Blair or Brown using the tube, but the minister for
Outer Twadlington?
Champ (deceased)
<uk...@siteline.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I can sort of see you point, but I really don't see the majority of the
>people who currently drive into central London moving onto public transport
>unless their current mode of travel because prohibitively expensive.
>FWIW, I don't think these people drive in because public transport is crap,
>it's more that they're the kind of people who are "above" using public
>transport.
Well, I'm quite happy for such people to pay a premium for such an
attitude, and for that premium to fund better public transport.
Everyone's a winner.
NM
> In article <3E4A4265...@chello.nl>, NM <never....@all.nl> wrote:
> >Ben Blaney wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Fuck the poor motorist. I don't see why anyone *needs* to drive their
> >> private car into the CC zone.
> >>
> >
> >Then you are a blinkered fool.
>
> Give us a reason then, rather than just stating that we are wrong.
>
> The list of exemptions and 100% discounts seems pretty inclusive
> to me.
It fails to cover any usage of vans and small trucks, needed to service
businesses and homes within the zone, I don't agree with the charge but I
could go some way towards embracing it if it was confined to private cars,
although there are some shift workers who can only get home/arrive at work by
car or taxi due to the poor coverage at night by PT. these should be allowed
an exemption on production of proof because they do have a need.
I could actually go along with a total ban on private cars within the area
unless qualifying exemption could be proved, this to me makes more sense than
charging as a way to relieve congestion. If some peripheral empty sites were
converted to controlled secure parking the roads would be relatively clear for
taxis to continue the journeys of those who do not wish to travel by
Train/Bus.
CT
>
> > FWIW, I don't think these people drive in because public transport is
crap,
> > it's more that they're the kind of people who are "above" using public
> > transport.
> >
>
> Or possibly they could be servicing a business or home and need a van, a
> plumber for example, or a shift worker in the entertainment or catering
sector
> who cannot get home after work by PT. Or ..... nurses....etc.etc.etc.
>
I guess it wasn't made clear but my point was more about getting more of the
'non-essential' drivers out of their cars and onto public transport.
But as you mention it, for people running a business in or around central
London,
I really don't think five quid a day is a problem. It would be a small
proportion
of their vehicle running costs and which they _could_ pass on to the
consumer.
There will always be a minority of people who are inconvenienced or get
increased
costs, but you have to take into account that the majority will see the
benefits.
And by mentioning nurses then you run the risk that this thread will just
degenerate
into a general crap wages thread.
NM
Already there on that one but derv not LPG.
Ben Blaney
Thanks for the quality debate.
W K
> "CT" <uk...@siteline.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b2dbvp$1a3bt4$1...@ID-155023.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Ben Blaney" <benb...@ukrm.net> wrote in message
> > news:7cbk4v0chktkdto43...@4ax.com...
> > > AnyOne ForAPint wrote:
> > [of congestion charge]
> > >
> > > >
> > > >No, there's opposition because it's scam to increase tax on
motorists.
> > >
> > > Bollocks. It's an attempt to reduce congestion in London, you thick
> > > cunt.
> <fx: proud>
> > I hate to agree with Jeremy Clarkson, but I really cannot see a fiver
> > detering many people from driving into London. The majority of those
> > that do either have no other choice, are on company business or do so
> > just because they can and a fiver on top of the cost of a day in the
> > NCP or feeding a meter is peanuts to them.
>
> *ding*
> Everyone I've spoken who currently drives into London has said they'll
just
> ask for another 1500UKP + normal rise next pay negotiation to cover the
> costs of paying this tax.
Ace. I'll ask for that.
Not that I drive to work.
Or work in London.
darsy
wrote:
>I also think ministers (the unimportant ones who no one's ever heard of)
>should damn well be forced to pay the charge. I can understand the 'security
>risk' to someone like Blair or Brown using the tube, but the minister for
>Outer Twadlington?
presumably you mean "MP" rather than "Minister", Dan?
--
darsy
cd200|r30|cbr900rr-y|r65ls - ukrm.net
W K
> MrBitsy wrote:
>
> > "AnyOne ForAPint" <Any14aPi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b2da63$1b3n84$1...@ID-75947.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "Ben Blaney" <benb...@ukrm.net> wrote in message
> > > news:kv8k4vobmhie3r9gi...@4ax.com...
> > > > AnyOne ForAPint wrote:
> > > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > No, there's opposition because it's scam to increase tax on motorists.
> > >
> > Its nothing of the sort. If traffic wasn't an issue then the charge
wouldn't
> > be there.
>
> The fact that the traffic is there is an excuse to introduce, slowly at
first,
> a back door taxation scheme. If attention had been paid earlier using the
funds
> already generated then there would be little congestion.
Ah yes, stop cities from being cities, knock down all those pesky buildings
where people want to go to make roads and no-one would have anywhere to go
in the city so wouldn;t go any more. problem solved.
> The root of the problem is the politically correct doctrine that people
should
> be encouraged out of their cars,
Where do you get that one from, what on earth has it to do with PC?
It has a lot more to do with them trying out pro-car schemes in places like
birmingham and realising its a nightmare.
> If they had taken steps to embrace the car as the transport choice of the
> people and made accommodation for it
... all cities would be just highways.
You know theres more to cities than roads, look how nice amsterdam is.
dwb
> *ding*
> Everyone I've spoken who currently drives into London has said they'll
just
> ask for another 1500UKP + normal rise next pay negotiation to cover the
> costs of paying this tax.
I would imagine in the economic climate that we appear to be in, that most
people will be lucky to get any kind of rise, let alone a handout of £1500.
As Ben said, unless a company can see a benefit for giving money to an
employee who could otherwise catch the bus, they are not going to hand out
anything.
Ben Blaney
>Or possibly they could be servicing a business or home and need a van,
A business incurs costs. That's business. Live with it.
>or a shift worker in the entertainment
Yeah, because low-paid people really commute by car. Pull the other
one.
>or catering sector
>who cannot get home after work by PT.
Ditto.
>Or ..... nurses....etc.etc.etc.
Ditto.
You need to borrow arguments from somewhere better than the Daily mail.
darsy
<richard...@nospanuk.thalesgroup.com> wrote:
>
>So your best bet is to buy a 12 seater land rover with an approved LPG
>conversion.
that's a fairly decent suggestion for travelling in London, anyway.
NM
> "NM" <nik.m...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:3E4A445C...@chello.nl...
> > MrBitsy wrote:
> >
> > > "AnyOne ForAPint" <Any14aPi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b2da63$1b3n84$1...@ID-75947.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > "Ben Blaney" <benb...@ukrm.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:kv8k4vobmhie3r9gi...@4ax.com...
> > > > > AnyOne ForAPint wrote:
> > > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > No, there's opposition because it's scam to increase tax on motorists.
> > > >
> > > Its nothing of the sort. If traffic wasn't an issue then the charge
> wouldn't
> > > be there.
> >
> > The fact that the traffic is there is an excuse to introduce, slowly at
> first,
> > a back door taxation scheme. If attention had been paid earlier using the
> funds
> > already generated then there would be little congestion.
>
> Ah yes, stop cities from being cities, knock down all those pesky buildings
> where people want to go to make roads and no-one would have anywhere to go
> in the city so wouldn;t go any more. problem solved.
Where I live (already 50 ft below sea level) there is loads of underground
parking, the seventeenth century buildings and narrow streets above don't seem
to be effected. I am having the pleasure of a tube line station being
constructed under the building I work in at the moment, the building is the
equivalent of a listed uk building, if you didn't know the work was progressing
you would be unable to tell.
If they can do it why can't you?
>
>
> > The root of the problem is the politically correct doctrine that people
> should
> > be encouraged out of their cars,
>
> Where do you get that one from, what on earth has it to do with PC?
> It has a lot more to do with them trying out pro-car schemes in places like
> birmingham and realising its a nightmare.
Just because the first experiment was a failure that's a reason to give up?
>
>
> > If they had taken steps to embrace the car as the transport choice of the
> > people and made accommodation for it
>
> ... all cities would be just highways.
> You know theres more to cities than roads, look how nice amsterdam is.
Yes agreed, I'll bet you don't even have an idea just how many underground car
parks there are in the city.
Ben Blaney
>FWIW, I don't think these people drive in because public transport is crap,
>it's more that they're the kind of people who are "above" using public
>transport.
Then they should actively enjoy paying the charge.
William Grainger
>William Grainger wrote:
>
>> In article <3E4A4265...@chello.nl>, NM <never....@all.nl> wrote:
>> >Ben Blaney wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Fuck the poor motorist. I don't see why anyone *needs* to drive their
>> >> private car into the CC zone.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Then you are a blinkered fool.
>>
>> Give us a reason then, rather than just stating that we are wrong.
>>
>> The list of exemptions and 100% discounts seems pretty inclusive
>> to me.
>
>It fails to cover any usage of vans and small trucks, needed to service
Add a tenner to any call out charge.
>I don't agree with the charge but I
>could go some way towards embracing it if it was confined to private cars,
>although there are some shift workers who can only get home/arrive at work by
>car or taxi due to the poor coverage at night by PT.
Taxis are exempt.
As the CC is intended to raise money for PT, it is an entirely spurious
argument to claim that it its not fair because PT is bad. When PT gets
more money, coverage increases. Everyone's happy.
William Grainger
>OK, what's the best way to do it?
>
>Any ideas?
As dual fuel vehicles get a 100% discount, then do that.
Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote in <3e6k4v0uajj83tkns...@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 07:44:48 +0000, chateau...@btinternet.com (The
> Older Gentleman) bored us all completely to death with wittery prose
> along the lines of:
><prolly snipped>
>>> Why don't we petition for small electric scooters to be made legal?
>>They are.
> Don't they need taxing, vehicle docs and to be legal, a helmet to be
> ridden?
Not if they have less than 200 W and are limited to 15 mph under
electric power. www.electricpedals.co.uk for example.
Looks like one small difference in the law between the UK and
mainland Europe -- here a rider may be propelled by electric power alone,
but elsewhere the rider must still pedal and oly use electrical "assist".
--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Eng., Brunel Uni. Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk
GSX600F, RG250WD. "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO# 003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
CT
news:7vhk4vccjf6njovsm...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:29:51 -0000, "CT"
> <uk...@siteline.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I can sort of see you point, but I really don't see the majority of the
> >people who currently drive into central London moving onto public
transport
> >unless their current mode of travel because prohibitively expensive.
> >FWIW, I don't think these people drive in because public transport is
crap,
> >it's more that they're the kind of people who are "above" using public
> >transport.
>
> Well, I'm quite happy for such people to pay a premium for such an
> attitude, and for that premium to fund better public transport.
And I am too.
> Everyone's a winner.
But not really, because the businesses that need to use vehicles within the
zone don't actually benefit from reduced congestion because there isn't any.
The type of people I mention will just keep on paying. There ought to be a
point where they _might_ consider ditching their car but that could be
50ukp or more.