OTish: Congestion charging petition

[p.k.]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> Buck wrote:
>
>> Matt's question is valid, would we accept personalised tracking
>> devices for every individual
>> in the U.K. including cyclists, linked to a central net so local and
>> national government
>> can see where you are/have been at any given time?
>
> As I understand it the system proposed can, at worst tell the
> government where you've BEEN, rather than where you are.
> Your mobile phone company, on the other hand, does know where you are
> albeit with less accuracy.


There is:

a> No compulsion to have a phone
b> No need to have the phone registered in your name.

Phones can move around, quite legally, with absolutely no way of tracking
any individual.

pk

 

[Roger Thorpe]

Matt B wrote:

> spindrift wrote:
>
>>
>> Motoring societies aren't advanced.
>
>
> Compared to what - horse-drawn societies, or do we have to go back
> further to find societies more advanced?
>
No, read the quote, It's about the use of modern public transport,
that's the sign of an advanced society.

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

 

[Roger Thorpe]

p.k. wrote:

> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>
>>Buck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt's question is valid, would we accept personalised tracking
>>>devices for every individual
>>>in the U.K. including cyclists, linked to a central net so local and
>>>national government
>>>can see where you are/have been at any given time?
>>
>>As I understand it the system proposed can, at worst tell the
>>government where you've BEEN, rather than where you are.
>>Your mobile phone company, on the other hand, does know where you are
>>albeit with less accuracy.
>
>
>
> There is:
>
> a> No compulsion to have a phone
> b> No need to have the phone registered in your name.
>
> Phones can move around, quite legally, with absolutely no way of tracking
> any individual.
>
> pk
>
>
Where's the compulsion to have a car?

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Matt B wrote:
>> congestion (leading to business
>> delays),
>
> That is a cost suffered by motorists, not caused by them. They should

When the congestion affects timely delivery of goods and services to
shops and customers, that is a cost suffered by everybody who wants
those goods and services.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[p.k.]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>
>>> Buck wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Matt's question is valid, would we accept personalised tracking
>>>> devices for every individual
>>>> in the U.K. including cyclists, linked to a central net so local
>>>> and national government
>>>> can see where you are/have been at any given time?
>>>
>>> As I understand it the system proposed can, at worst tell the
>>> government where you've BEEN, rather than where you are.
>>> Your mobile phone company, on the other hand, does know where you
>>> are albeit with less accuracy.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is:
>>
>> a> No compulsion to have a phone
>> b> No need to have the phone registered in your name.
>>
>> Phones can move around, quite legally, with absolutely no way of
>> tracking any individual.
>>
>> pk
>>
>>
> Where's the compulsion to have a car?

Compulsion to have a tracking device is the point. Having a phone does not
imply trackability, having a car would.

pk

 

[Roger Thorpe]

p.k. wrote:

> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>
>>p.k. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Buck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt's question is valid, would we accept personalised tracking
>>>>>devices for every individual
>>>>>in the U.K. including cyclists, linked to a central net so local
>>>>>and national government
>>>>>can see where you are/have been at any given time?
>>>>
>>>>As I understand it the system proposed can, at worst tell the
>>>>government where you've BEEN, rather than where you are.
>>>>Your mobile phone company, on the other hand, does know where you
>>>>are albeit with less accuracy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>There is:
>>>
>>>a> No compulsion to have a phone
>>>b> No need to have the phone registered in your name.
>>>
>>>Phones can move around, quite legally, with absolutely no way of
>>>tracking any individual.
>>>
>>>pk
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Where's the compulsion to have a car?
>
>
> Compulsion to have a tracking device is the point. Having a phone does not
> imply trackability, having a car would.
>
> pk
>
>
If there were an opt-out where you can pay a (higher than average) flat
charge and avoid the box would that make you happy?


--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

 

[p.k.]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>
> If there were an opt-out where you can pay a (higher than average)
> flat charge and avoid the box would that make you happy?

So the rich can avoid being tracked but the poor can't?

pk

 

[John B]

"p.k." wrote:

> Roger Thorpe wrote:
> >>
> > If there were an opt-out where you can pay a (higher than average)
> > flat charge and avoid the box would that make you happy?
>
> So the rich can avoid being tracked but the poor can't?

Anyone can avoid it if they wish to.

John B

 

[Matt B]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> spindrift wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Motoring societies aren't advanced.
>>
>>
>> Compared to what - horse-drawn societies, or do we have to go back
>> further to find societies more advanced?
>>
> No, read the quote, It's about the use of modern public transport,
> that's the sign of an advanced society.

Ah, so he ment to say motoring societies /are/ advanced. Or do you
think his vision of PT is the horse-drawn, or human-powered type?

--
Matt B

 

[Daniel Barlow]

p.k. wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>> If there were an opt-out where you can pay a (higher than average)
>> flat charge and avoid the box would that make you happy?
>
> So the rich can avoid being tracked but the poor can't?

I still don't see why the system can't admit the use of prepay cards.
The box in the car would still have a unique id, but that's reasonable
enough: the car already has human-readable unique ids displayed to front
and rear. The point is that the driver isn't similarly tagged so can
discard his SIM at any time and get another.

There are probably those who don't accept that driver tracking is a bad
thing, but if the consensus is that it /is/ undesirable, this would be
one alternative.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[Matt B]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>>> congestion (leading to business
>>> delays),
>> That is a cost suffered by motorists, not caused by them. They should
>
> When the congestion affects timely delivery of goods and services to
> shops and customers, that is a cost suffered by everybody who wants
> those goods and services.

Yes. They should be compensated by those who are wantonly failing to
provide adequate infrastructure to meet the demand. The HA, and
councils should have targets, as the railways do, for their network
service levels. They should then be penalised, not rewarded, for
failing to meet them.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

John B wrote:
>
> "p.k." wrote:
>
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>> If there were an opt-out where you can pay a (higher than average)
>>> flat charge and avoid the box would that make you happy?
>> So the rich can avoid being tracked but the poor can't?
>
> Anyone can avoid it if they wish to.

And exercise their right to drive on public roads - how?

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>> If there were an opt-out where you can pay a (higher than average)
>>> flat charge and avoid the box would that make you happy?
>> So the rich can avoid being tracked but the poor can't?
>
> I still don't see why the system can't admit the use of prepay cards.

You are making the assumption that the primary objective of the system
is to charge for road use. If it was it would have been designed to do
just that. As it is it is apparent that the main objective is something
else. What other explanation is there for not optimising it to charge
for road use?

--
Matt B

 

[p.k.]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>> If there were an opt-out where you can pay a (higher than average)
>>> flat charge and avoid the box would that make you happy?
>>
>> So the rich can avoid being tracked but the poor can't?
>
> I still don't see why the system can't admit the use of prepay cards.
> The box in the car would still have a unique id, but that's reasonable
> enough: the car already has human-readable unique ids displayed to
> front and rear. The point is that the driver isn't similarly tagged
> so can discard his SIM at any time and get another.


Real time dynamic pricing! you have more faith than I do in the ability of
the govt to set up mega billion IT schemes!

pk

 

[Daniel Barlow]

p.k. wrote:
> Real time dynamic pricing!

Yes, I believe that was the scheme proposed.

> you have more faith than I do in the ability of
> the govt to set up mega billion IT schemes!

No, I doubt that. I'm not saying "this is how it's going to work", but
"there is no sensible excuse not to make it work this way". I am sure
that they will manage to stuff it up anyway, but without the benefit of
a sensible excuse.

Frankly it probabyl wouldn't be that hard if they were to contract it
out to Trafficmaster or someone who already knows what they're doing and
probably has half the infrastructure in place already. It's only force
of habit[*] that make them reach for the Capita/EDS safety blanket every
time.


[*] well, I assume. It's certainly not previous completion record

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

On Feb 12, 9:30 pm, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> > Simon Dean wrote:
> >> Yeah, presumably link this in with the sex offender register and you
> >> can go out and bash a few paedos in too? Who knows, maybe it could
> >> actually be used by the paedos to find out where kids are... you see,
> >> the technology is evil I tells ye... Muwahahaha..
> >
> > Go and bother some other people, please. We're not interested in you.
>
> Good. Im not interested in you either!
>
> For mild mannered placid cyclists, you guys sure are antagonistic.

Not at all. You have never posted anything on topic here, you make the
place tedious to be part of, and you appear to have a victim complex
(see next quote).

> I respond to a bunch of **** in a public forum about drivers and you
> have to moan? Should I invoke Godwin's Law?

That 'bunch of ****' is merely a note in support of a current
government policy which many feel would make a level playing field for
non-car transport including cycling by pricing in some of the
externalities. Famously illiberal leftwing newspapers such as 'The
Economist' have noted support for systems which do this.

You're right about this being a public forum, but as someone who's
been using this forum for a long while, I occasionally take the
liberty of telling someone that they're making it irrelevant for its
intended use.

> However Im not a troll, just a passionate driver, hopefully soon to be
> buying a bike, but as a liberal, I also have a passion for fairness and
> equality which is why I get angry at the amount of bull that's posted here.

Well, ask away about how to buy your bike and how to enjoy cycling and
its practicalities, but if it bothers you that some people would like
to live lifestyles which involve less sitting around in cars burning
fossil fuels*, and would like to discuss that in a forum about a
technology which is eminently suited to doing that, I'd suggest you
let them be.

For myself, I'm perfectly aware that for some journeys cars are more
useful, and I use one for my commute. It cuts my working day from
07:10-19:55 down to 08:40-18:20. I manage to reconcile myself to the
inconveniences involved and the external costs caused without spending
hours of other people's time attempting to justify myself, though.
--
A
*albeit in my case only indirectly burning them

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 13 Feb, Roger Thorpe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Buck wrote:
>
> > Matt's question is valid, would we accept personalised tracking
> > devices for every individual in the U.K. including cyclists,
> > linked to a central net so local and national government can see
> > where you are/have been at any given time?
>
> As I understand it the system proposed can, at worst tell the government
> where you've BEEN, rather than where you are.
> Your mobile phone company, on the other hand, does know where you are
> albeit with less accuracy.

Although don't all US mobile phones have GPS receivers or equivalent
systems in them, and teh phone company can determine in real time
where the receiver is (to about 50m)?

I think it's called E911

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:50:32 -0000, p.k. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
> > p.k. wrote:
> >
> >> There is:
> >>
> >> a> No compulsion to have a phone
> >> b> No need to have the phone registered in your name.
> >>
> >> Phones can move around, quite legally, with absolutely no way of
> >> tracking any individual.
> >
> > Where's the compulsion to have a car?
>
> Compulsion to have a tracking device is the point. Having a phone does not
> imply trackability, having a car would.

SO there's no difference at all -

It's not compulsory to have a mobile phone, but every phone can be
tracked.

It wouldn't be compulsory to have a car, and every car could be
tracked.

What is the difference?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[p.k.]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>> Real time dynamic pricing!
>
> Yes, I believe that was the scheme proposed.

Not quite. As proposed it is dynamic, billed retrospectively. Having repaid
cards in cars takes it on to a new level of complexity

pk

 

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:50:32 -0000, p.k. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>> p.k. wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is:
>>>>
>>>> a> No compulsion to have a phone
>>>> b> No need to have the phone registered in your name.
>>>>
>>>> Phones can move around, quite legally, with absolutely no way of
>>>> tracking any individual.
>>> Where's the compulsion to have a car?
>> Compulsion to have a tracking device is the point. Having a phone does not
>> imply trackability, having a car would.
>
> SO there's no difference at all -

Yes there is. Mobile phones work by the software knowing where they are
in the cell network - whether that data should be recorded and available
to "the authorities" is another question though. A Government
controlled surveillance system isn't required for cars to work, even if
we were to acceot that road pricing was a good thing (which I don't).

> It's not compulsory to have a mobile phone, but every phone can be
> tracked.

Indeed /has/ to be tracked for it to work. You can turn it off though
if you are paranoid and continue your journey.

> It wouldn't be compulsory to have a car, and every car could be
> tracked.

Cars have no requirement to be tracked. If you turn your car off you
can't continue on your journey.

> What is the difference?

Car tracking is not required to pay for road use. Phone tracking is a
side-effect of cell phone technology.

It couldn't be more apparent.

--
Matt B