Cycle to welcome congestion charge?

[Elyob]

Just wondering if anyone is knows any plans on welcoming the congestion charge with a cycle ride
around London.

In fact, what's your feelings about the congestion charge? I hear they are reconsidering LPG car
discount as lots of people are changing over to escape the charges. Personally a mixed 'congestion &
pollution reduction' is preferable to just congestion IMO.

Not sure if it's going to help, but if it works, London will be a lot safer place to cycle

 

[Stephen \]

"elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just wondering if anyone is knows any plans on welcoming the congestion charge with a cycle ride
> around London.
>
> In fact, what's your feelings about the congestion charge? I hear they are reconsidering LPG car
> discount as lots of people are changing over to
escape
> the charges. Personally a mixed 'congestion & pollution reduction' is preferable to just
> congestion IMO.
>
> Not sure if it's going to help, but if it works, London will be a lot
safer
> place to cycle
>
Well I'm looking forward to it for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there will be an explosion of
websites offering ways round it too and people doing all sorts so their plates can't be seen or
driving old taxis or whatever. I also wonder how it will work for foreign registered cars? I notice
that signs around the zone have now appeared. It must be up and running and being tested as we speak
I would have thought - very interesting stuff.

 

[Andyp]

I heard a chap say the other day that he would gladly pay a fiver if it meant fewer cars on the road
and he could drive to work that little bit quicker. He went on to say that the tube was so crowded
already that again people would pay the charge rather than stand in crowded tube trains. My view is
that the congestion charge will raise an awl lot of money foP"8¦©. TAKETHIS
<eE5LkU#[email protected]> From: "Vladimir Lysenko" <[email protected]> References:
<[email protected]> Subject: Re: How to prevent all buttons to turn PDA on ? Date: Tue,
14 Jan 2003 16:55:37 +0100 Lines: 31 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft
Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID:
<eE5LkU#[email protected]> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.pocketpc NNTP-Posting-Host:
proxy1.computerhelp.cz 212.24.159.2 Path: news.ade.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.-
connect.com.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!cw-insnet-peer-00!feed.-
news.insnet.cw.net!pknews.psion.com!TK2MSFTNGP08!TK2MSFTNGP09 Xref: news.ade.connect.com.au
microsoft.public.pocketpc:176464

On Pocket PC Phone Edition here: Start/Settings/Personal/Phone/More/"Lock all buttons except Power
button" ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ With regards Vladimír Lysenko PSS Microsoft Hotline Czech Republic
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ "Frédéric ESNOUF" <[email protected]> pí¹e v diskusním pøíspìvku
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I have an Ipaq and there is something I relly don't like. When the PDA is off, you can press
> all the buttons (ON/OFF, joystick, and the 4 buttons at the bottom of the PDA) and it turns
> the PDA on.
>
> Unfortunatly, if you have your PDA in a pocket you may 'press' whatever button and then the
> batteries goes down for nothing.
>
> Are there any ways to make sure that only the on/off button can turn this pda on or off ?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> --
> Frédéric ESNOUF [email protected]

 

[Toby Sleigh]

"elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Not sure if it's going to help, but if it works, London will be a lot
safer
> place to cycle
>
>
I disagree. There might well be more of the " I've paid, so the roads mine" type of attitude. Also
does anyone know if those large red circles painted on the road surface at the edge of the zone use
anti skid paint. There are two at Hyde Park Corner right on the bend into Constitution Hill. I've
avoided them so far. Toby

 

[Ace Agincourt]

Hi elyob,

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:57:00 GMT, in uk.rec.cycling elyob put fingers to keyboard and tapped away
writing...

Message ID:- <[email protected]>

> Just wondering if anyone is knows any plans on welcoming the congestion charge with a cycle ride
> around London.
>
> In fact, what's your feelings about the congestion charge? I hear they are reconsidering LPG car
> discount as lots of people are changing over to escape the charges. Personally a mixed 'congestion
> & pollution reduction' is preferable to just congestion IMO.
>
> Not sure if it's going to help, but if it works, London will be a lot safer place to cycle

The zone is not big enough. It should be £5 per day for driving anywhere within the M25, and £10 per
day in Central London.

Next year, perhaps...
--

Best wishes, Agincourt

And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold
their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

 

[Pete Biggs]

elyob wrote:
> In fact, what's your feelings about the congestion charge?

I'm looking forward to seeing the results a lot. It's bound to soon/instantly be noticeably better
inside the charging zone anyway.

~PB

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> Not sure if it's going to help, but if it works, London will be a lot safer place to cycle
>
I'm not sure about that. Congestion is the cyclists' friend. it's congestion that makes bikes twice
as fast as cars in central London.

If the congestion charge works, there will be no motor vehicles left in the zone apart from yuppies'
Porsches, and white vans, both at last able to indulge their inclination to travel at double the
speed limit.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Daniel Wilcox]

Stephen (aka steford) wrote:

> Well I'm looking forward to it for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there will be an explosion of
> websites offering ways round it too and people doing all sorts so their plates can't be seen or
> driving old taxis or whatever. I also wonder how it will work for foreign registered cars? I
> notice that signs around the zone have now appeared. It must be up and running and being tested as
> we speak I would have thought - very interesting stuff.
>

I am also interested in seeing what happens, my commute skirts the zone though so it will be wait
and see for me as to whether or not I will be worse off. I will obviously be upset if car traffic
increases around the zone as they slow me down no end at the moment.

What annoys me about this cheme though are all the people who whinge about this, admit something has
to be done and then don't have any idea what they would like to see. Personally I don't think it
goes far enough and I would have been tempted to extend the zone to the A406 and charge a tenner.

Daniel.

 

[Stephen \]

"andyp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I heard a chap say the other day that he would gladly pay a fiver if it meant fewer cars on the
> road and he could drive to work that little bit quicker. He went on to say that the tube was so
> crowded already that again people
would
> pay the charge rather than stand in crowded tube trains. My view is that the congestion charge
> will raise an awl lot of money for public transport (a good thing) without actually reducing the
> number of cars on the road.
>
> AndyP
>
Yes one of Ken's concerns when he was planning this is that it forces poor people off the roads
which is why he wanted to charge small cars less but this was a practical impossibility apparently.
Even if it only raises money for transport it'll be good. Hopefully the charge will be increased to
£10 (or more for larger cars if it becomes possible, 1 occupant etc) and traffic will get less. It
also ought to be more inconvenient to drive in London in general I think with more pedestrian zones,
cycle paths, no car days/times etc. I'm sure for the 1st few weeks of the charge it'll be a
nightmare around the zone with those bailing out at the last second.

 

[Daniel Wilcox]

Toby Sleigh wrote:
> "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Not sure if it's going to help, but if it works, London will be a lot
>
> safer
>
>>place to cycle
>>
>>
>
> I disagree. There might well be more of the " I've paid, so the roads mine" type of attitude. Also
> does anyone know if those large red circles painted on the road surface at the edge of the zone
> use anti skid paint. There are two at Hyde Park Corner right on the bend into Constitution Hill.
> I've avoided them so far. Toby
>
>

Thats a good point, as we all know cars already have more right to use the road because they pay
VED; known in the vernacular as "Road tax the white vans burden." On the other hand if there is
less congestion there will perhaps be less stress to counter the "ive paid for it you havn't get
off the road you filthy scum cyclist" factor. It will be interesting to see what happens and I hope
you are wrong about this because it's horrible at the moment and I can't bare the thought of it
getting any worse.

Daniel.

 

[Stephen \]

"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> elyob wrote:
> > In fact, what's your feelings about the congestion charge?
>
> I'm looking forward to seeing the results a lot. It's bound to soon/instantly be noticeably better
> inside the charging zone anyway.
>
> ~PB

Yes but you know whatever the results are (and I'm sure it will be a reduction in traffic and
polution) they'll be used by the anti charge crowd to show that it isn't working as I think Ken said
something along the lines that if it didn't work he'd scrap it. Hopefully he will increase the
charge to see if that helps before it comes to that.

 

[David Damerell]

Toby Sleigh <[email protected]> wrote:
>Also does anyone know if those large red circles painted on the road surface at the edge of the
>zone use anti skid paint. There are two at Hyde Park Corner right on the bend into Constitution
>Hill. I've avoided them so far.

I've been over some in the wet without trouble.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[David]

"Toby Sleigh" wrote
> >
> > Not sure if it's going to help, but if it works, London will be a lot
> safer
> > place to cycle
> >
> >
> I disagree. There might well be more of the " I've paid, so the roads mine" type of attitude.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I kind of *like* congestion - slow moving traffic I can
overtake effortlessly. I'm not really sure I want a lot of faster cars driven by resentful people
who think they've bought some additional rights - hell, they're bad enough with the VED. Mind you it
will be 'interesting'...

David

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

"Ace Agincourt" <agincourt1.don'[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Message ID:- <[email protected]>
> > Just wondering if anyone is knows any plans on welcoming the congestion charge with a cycle ride
> > around London.
> >
> > In fact, what's your feelings about the congestion charge? I hear they
are
> > reconsidering LPG car discount as lots of people are changing over to
escape
> > the charges. Personally a mixed 'congestion & pollution reduction' is preferable to just
> > congestion IMO.
> >
> > Not sure if it's going to help, but if it works, London will be a lot
safer
> > place to cycle
>
>
> The zone is not big enough. It should be £5 per day for driving anywhere within the M25, and £10
> per day in Central London.
>
IIRC, Edinburgh's planning to have one charge for coming into the city (i.e. not applicable if the
person's car stays inside the city all day, and doesn't cross the city ring road), and one charge
for going into the very centre, so suburban traffic will carry on as normal, but commuter traffic
may well be discouraged.

A

 

[Stephen \]

"Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Not sure if it's going to help, but if it works, London will be a lot
safer
> > place to cycle
> >
> I'm not sure about that. Congestion is the cyclists' friend. it's congestion that makes bikes
> twice as fast as cars in central London.
>
> If the congestion charge works, there will be no motor vehicles left in the zone apart from
> yuppies' Porsches, and white vans, both at last able to indulge their inclination to travel at
> double the speed limit.
>
But the air will be breathable

 

[Mr [email protected] \ -Lsqco]

In news:[email protected], Stephen (aka steford)
<[email protected]> typed:

> pedestrian zones, cycle paths, no car days/times etc. I'm sure for the 1st few weeks of the charge
> it'll be a nightmare around the zone with those bailing out at the last second.

and the possibility of increased road rage incidents at the checkpoints / forbidden zone or whatever
it is called when the cagers realise that the *can't* go any further without dipping into their
pockets. I hope whoever is on the cordons or guarding the zone has been issued with appropriate PPE
(stab proof vests etc)

Alex

Alex

 

[Mr [email protected] \ -Lsqco]

> will be increased to £10 (or more for larger cars if it becomes possible, 1 occupant etc)

I may have posted this previously, but I remember being informed that one consequence of a US state
(CA?) imposing restrictions on the use of single-occupant vehicles to encourage car-sharing and more
sustainable use, was a *massive increase in the sale of inflatable sex dolls*! It turned out the
cagers weren't using them for the intended purpose, but dressing these in womens business clothing,
and driving to work with the doll in the front passenger seat to circumvent the car-sharing rules...

Alex

 

[Tony W]

"Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Yes one of Ken's concerns when he was planning this is that it forces poor people off the roads
> which is why he wanted to charge small cars less but this was a practical impossibility
> apparently. Even if it only raises
money
> for transport it'll be good. Hopefully the charge will be increased to £10 (or more for larger
> cars if it becomes possible, 1 occupant etc) and
traffic
> will get less. It also ought to be more inconvenient to drive in London in general I think with
> more pedestrian zones, cycle paths, no car days/times etc. I'm sure for the 1st few weeks of the
> charge it'll be a nightmare around the zone with those bailing out at the last second.

Where, pray, is the problem in charging by size? The system identifies number plates. Number plates
are issued to individual cars and DVLA obviously know a Roller from a Reliant Robin.

If extracting the information from DVLA is considered an infringement of human rights (and Ken must
be intending to contact DVLA for those who have not paid) then drivers can be asked what type of car
they are driving when they phone up to pay. False declaration is fraud -- at which time the
fraudster gives up certain rights and privileges by committing a crime. A random check would act as
a deterrent for the fraudsters.

Simple -- another few lines of code & its done.

T

 

[Danny Colyer]

Tony W wondered:
> Where, pray, is the problem in charging by size? The system identifies number plates. Number
> plates are issued to individual cars and DVLA obviously know a Roller from a Reliant Robin.

I think you'd end up with something similar to the situation in Athens (IIRC), where cars with odd
numbered plates and cars with even numbered plates are let in on alternate days. Those who can
afford it simply own two cars, and drive in every day.

In London, those who could afford it would simply buy a second car, small enough for lower
congestion charges. I suppose that wouldn't be entirely a bad thing, though I have an image of
parking problems just outside the charging zones, where people drive their Jags to the edge of the
zone, then get in the Fiesta to go the rest of the way.

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> I may have posted this previously, but I remember being informed that one consequence of a US
> state (CA?) imposing restrictions on the use of single-occupant vehicles to encourage car-sharing
> and more sustainable use, was a *massive increase in the sale of inflatable sex dolls*! It turned
> out the cagers weren't using them for the intended purpose, ....

Well, not during the rush hour, at least.

Jeremy Parker