View Full Version : Black boxes for all cars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3178579.stm
And how long will it take for someone to find a way to modify the chip to their own advantage?
Imagine how powerful the computer system would have to be to cope with all the motorists out there breaking the law!
Most people on motorways would be done for doing more than 70mph (hopefully including the Police Peugeot Expert driver who passed me at 100mph last night near Derby on the M1, who drifted all over the place, changed lanes without indicating and certainly didn't have his blue lights going).
Lord Nikon
25-08-2003, 12:34
My response would be this....
1) How would it be fitted? Splicing into an existing wiring harness could theoretically cause a fire risk, and would invalidate the warranty on some cars as well as void things like mobility agreements.
2) if the link to it was fused, then what is stopping the fuse being removed
3) if the link is NOT fused, then I assume the Govt will foot the bill for cars burned out due to electrical problems
4) if the unit is fitted then I assume the govt will be footing the bill for increased fuel usage? (current drain on the alternator increases drag on the engine and lowers fuel efficiency)
5) Who do they expect to foot the bill?
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
My response would be this....
1) How would it be fitted? Splicing into an existing wiring harness could theoretically cause a fire risk, and would invalidate the warranty on some cars as well as void things like mobility agreements.
If the device were fitted when a car was new, the warranty would surely cover it. If the device is fitted to an older car (during the MOT) then surely the warranty would have expired anyway?
2) if the link to it was fused, then what is stopping the fuse being removed
Don't know. If a car uses an engine management system, the chip could be integrated in that.
3) if the link is NOT fused, then I assume the Govt will foot the bill for cars burned out due to electrical problems
Probably not...
4) if the unit is fitted then I assume the govt will be footing the bill for increased fuel usage? (current drain on the alternator increases drag on the engine and lowers fuel efficiency)
Again probably not. Actually, I wouldn't have thought the current drain would be any more than say switching the radio on, or plugging a mobile phone in.
5) Who do they expect to foot the bill?
Probably us.
Actually, I don't see the point of this chip. They say it could be used to track terrorists and criminals. Theoritcally, it could. This is assuming that a) The criminal/terrorist is using their own car (unlikely) or b) The police know what car they are using (possible).
It could, however, make Congestion Charging easier/cheaper to implement, and make tax dogers easier to find.
Other than that, it does not seem to achieve anything our current systems cannot.
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
My response would be this....
1) How would it be fitted? Splicing into an existing wiring harness could theoretically cause a fire risk, and would invalidate the warranty on some cars as well as void things like mobility agreements.
2) if the link to it was fused, then what is stopping the fuse being removed
3) if the link is NOT fused, then I assume the Govt will foot the bill for cars burned out due to electrical problems
4) if the unit is fitted then I assume the govt will be footing the bill for increased fuel usage? (current drain on the alternator increases drag on the engine and lowers fuel efficiency)
5) Who do they expect to foot the bill?
The other important question, would you make dam sure Labour, never makes Government for a third term ?
Lord Nikon
25-08-2003, 15:04
Originally posted by scastle
[snip]
Actually, I wouldn't have thought the current drain would be any more than say switching the radio on, or plugging a mobile phone in.
[snip]
Maybe, but I CHOOSE to switch on a radio, or to plug in a phone charger, I do NOT choose to install an electronic surveilance device in the car, which is effectively what this system would be. A way to monitor ALL cars & people constantly while moving.
The system states it can check "when cars waver on the road, or how many times a car enters a bus lane"
Point here is how many times do you swerve to avoid a cat / dog? or a drunk pedestrian? possibly a pothole in the road?
each of those would also be logged, and could lead to the police charging you with not having proper control of the vehicle.
Recently I had to tax the car again. (6 months tax the first time) and couldn't find the MOT the first time, I found it within a week and taxed the car... The law generally allows a little leeway, 2 weeks to renew tax, this is at the discretion of the officer involved and as long as you tax the car from the start of that month they are happy... This system would allow NO leeway.
If the system is ECU based then what happens if the ECU Fails? the records would be tied to the OLD ECU, not the new one, if you fit a second hand ECU (more economical on older vehicles) then the system wouldn't point to your car any more...
Its an example of how they want to mess us around, yet again.
Also, new cars purchased and imported. They would also require a retrofit of the system which COULD or WOULD invalidate the warranty!
zoombini
25-08-2003, 19:14
You also have to wonder if it will be made so that it cannot be disabled without disabling the car?
Disabling it would help thieves get away without capture, so disabling the car would seem a pretty sensible thing to do if the box gets disabled.
However, you can bet that there are going to be many that want to disable them anyway.
I would imagine that they would only initially be compulsory in new cars.
Originally posted by zoombini
I would imagine that they would only initially be compulsory in new cars.
Thats not what i heard, apparently whenever someone takes along their 2nd hand car to be MOT'd they will install it there at the garage.
I think the brains behind this have thought about people wanting to disable the box, the thing is, if the signals require information about Road tax MOT status etc to be sent to the receivers out on the road then, you will be getting fines through the post for either 1) Not having a MOT certificate or 2) Not having a valid road fund license.
I think the chip will also include driving license information, so disabling the box could be almost impossible to avoid fines, as the system itself requiring the data when you pass receivers out on the roads.
Total barmy idea and I do not think it will ever work.
Another example of Labours dream of a nanny state:rolleyes:
What if you sell the car but the new owner doesn't update the chip details like a lot of people dont update their log books?
Lord Nikon
25-08-2003, 20:27
And what about vehicles with multiple drivers? eg family car, pool car etc etc etc
the system is fraught with problems, and will receive unbelievable amounts of opposition
Excellent idea, your all law abiding people, you have nothing to worry about, I think we should chip people too, not so we can tell where they are just who they are.
Gets my vote.:)
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Also, new cars purchased and imported. They would also require a retrofit of the system which COULD or WOULD invalidate the warranty!
The government would simply change the law to require the manufacturer to fit the chip at the factory. They would then ban any sales of non-chipped cars in this country. They have done this in the past in all sorts of industries.
As to warranties. Surely, most manfacturer's warranties allow authorised service centres to make modifications?
Unfortunately, if the government decides to introduce this (and there is no evidence they will), they will not worry about the effect on the motorist.
I don't see what this system can do that can't be done with the current systems a lot more cheaply.
Also, as far as I can tell, the only people who will benefit from this are the government.
The chip is a bad idea.
Lord Nikon
26-08-2003, 02:58
Is there any way we can get the current govt out of power before the next election? :D
timewarrior2001
26-08-2003, 09:24
Its a load of crap, what would the police.....especially Cleveland police that have recently been ticketing drivers for 31mph in a 30 zone (yes they are unofficially operating a zero tolerance speeding campaign it seems) do. I mean these hardworking officers that have been specially trained at hiding their vans and sitting on their arses all day would be out of a job.
Its a shame that the police force would then be expected to catch.....dare I say it.......criminals. There'd be no let off to say they were clamping down on speeding motorists while women get raped, old folks battered for 50p and murders commited.
I also wonder how long it would take for someone to invent a little black box of their own that would fry the raodside sensor network.
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Its a load of crap, what would the police.....especially Cleveland police that have recently been ticketing drivers for 31mph in a 30 zone (yes they are unofficially operating a zero tolerance speeding campaign it seems) do.
Just out of interest, 'zero tolerance' refers to the reporting of the offence and not neccessarily of prosecution. Should a policeman report you for doing 31mph you could successfully argue in court that your car's speedometer is not accurately caibrated to the level that traffic poilce cars are (there is no legal requirement to do so) therefore it's theoretically possible for you to be doing up to 10% above or below what the reading actually says. With this element of doubt the court must rule in your favour.
Of course what the police are hoping is that you'll see the 'evidence' and admit guilt just to avoid all the hassle, thereby gaining yourself points and a fine (not to mention an annual increas in insurance premiums for up to 5 years).
Originally posted by dellwear
Excellent idea, your all law abiding people, you have nothing to worry about, I think we should chip people too, not so we can tell where they are just who they are.
Gets my vote.:) You'll get Russ started.....:D
Why do you think he said it?? ;) :D
zoombini
26-08-2003, 11:25
Hmm, I have a very nice static generating gun at work for testing EMC immunity, does a very nice job of blowing chips up it does...lol
Damn stupid idea.
But if the government want to introduce it they will, what we say matters nowt. HOwever if they do, they can damn well pay for it.
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Its a load of crap, what would the police.....especially Cleveland police that have recently been ticketing drivers for 31mph in a 30 zone (yes they are unofficially operating a zero tolerance speeding campaign it seems) do. I mean these hardworking officers that have been specially trained at hiding their vans and sitting on their arses all day would be out of a job.
Its a shame that the police force would then be expected to catch.....dare I say it.......criminals. There'd be no let off to say they were clamping down on speeding motorists while women get raped, old folks battered for 50p and murders commited.
I also wonder how long it would take for someone to invent a little black box of their own that would fry the raodside sensor network.
The answer to everyones problems is not to speed, in fact if you don't break the law in any way whatsoever you have nothing to worry about.
I cant stick drivers that think they should be able to pick and choose the laws they stick by just because they are sitting behind the wheel of a car.:mad:
timewarrior2001
26-08-2003, 14:21
want me to send you a pic of my speedo, See if you can tell me which is 30 Mph and which is 31 Mph?:)
Well its obvious what the alternative is... get a motorbike! Where in the article does it say that motorbikes will be fitted with these devices. In my opinion (and yes i am a bkie rider) this is discriminating car drivers.
It would be interesting if they tried to instal these on bikes tho, just thing of the size of 'swerving log'. Bikers swerve to overtake cars in the city centres all the time!!
The UK will become a country full of mototrbikes, and not a car in sight, unless you can abide by every driving law there is ;)
Seb
Can't see it ever happening, all sorts to go wrong. How long before the system was hacked and or had a virus attack ?
Just tooooo many problems possible and probable.. IMHO
Scarlett
26-08-2003, 16:15
Originally posted by dellwear
The answer to everyones problems is not to speed, in fact if you don't break the law in any way whatsoever you have nothing to worry about.
I cant stick drivers that think they should be able to pick and choose the laws they stick by just because they are sitting behind the wheel of a car.:mad:
Can I just ask if you have a car or even drive...
I do and yes on occasion I do speed but in my defence I know the roads that I drive on very well (twice a day for the last year+ ) and I know what speed is safe and slow down if its wet.
I don't overtake on blind corners, I indicate before turning/changing lane and make sure that it is safe to pull out instead of just putting my foot down.
What they expect to achive apart from pi$$ing the british public off is beyond me.
Lets see, we will charge you to have this chip fitted to your car, or else!, then we will try and fine you for every minor little transgression of the highway code regardless of what the cause is. This is on top of all the other money that we charge you just for the privilage of owning a car.
I have to use a car because the bus service to get to work is so bad as to be unusabe. oh yes the weekly bus ticket is £15, my petrol costs for the sam journey, around £10.
Wow some rant.:D
Originally posted by dellwear
The answer to everyones problems is not to speed, in fact if you don't break the law in any way whatsoever you have nothing to worry about.
I cant stick drivers that think they should be able to pick and choose the laws they stick by just because they are sitting behind the wheel of a car.:mad:
I do not think us drivers are picking the laws, what we do not appreciate is, the police have it in for us yet muggers and thieves walk away scot free, which are in essence the real criminals and have no respect for today's society.
keithwalton
26-08-2003, 17:28
My 2p
This is just another nail in the labour gov's coffin, there gonna have to pull a few mircacles to stay in power.
Since they've been in power they've anoyied, motorists, students, nhs staff, local councils.
They really are treding a very fine line.
Its not just a conincidence that the asylum center thingy that there trying to build near my parents is a heavily conservative area, they know that they dont stand a snow balls chance in hell of winning the election. Its a damage limitation thing.
The rural folk of this country have had enough of been told what they can and cant do by the city slickers and are really cheased off.
I wish soon Mr T Blair would stop wasting tax payers money on expensive holidays, helping foreigners that clearly dont want our help. and get round to fixing the problems at home.
It was only a few days ago that a friend of mine was attacked in broad daylight at around 4pm on the uni campus (which has our own security patrols!) the mugger attempted to kidnap the victim but failed and my friend managed to get away.
The police wouldnt even take notice about it, they were too busy with other matters.
What if there next victim isnt so lucky ? its sickening that it happend in the first place even worse that nothing that has been done about it.
Muggers dont allways want your possesions sometimes they want you !
and they wonder why gun crime has risen, could it be people taking things into there own hands as they have no faith in the authorities by any chance
[/rant]
K
Lord Nikon
26-08-2003, 17:36
Originally posted by Scarlett
Can I just ask if you have a car or even drive...
I do and yes on occasion I do speed but in my defence I know the roads that I drive on very well (twice a day for the last year+ ) and I know what speed is safe and slow down if its wet.
I don't overtake on blind corners, I indicate before turning/changing lane and make sure that it is safe to pull out instead of just putting my foot down.
Ask most police officers, especially traffic ones and they will tell you that speeding does NOT kill. Inability to control the vehicle at speed, or inappropriate USE of speed kills.
The worst accident one officer I spoke to had seen was caused by a SPEED CAMERA! - it was on a 30mph stretch of road, and a driver had paid more attention to the camera than the road ahead, and did 30mph into the rear corner of a car turning left, spinning it into the kerb and a few pedestrians.
What they expect to achive apart from pi$$ing the british public off is beyond me.
More easy revenue, and reduction of traffic by point accumulation bans probably
Lets see, we will charge you to have this chip fitted to your car, or else!, then we will try and fine you for every minor little transgression of the highway code regardless of what the cause is. This is on top of all the other money that we charge you just for the privilage of owning a car.
I have to use a car because the bus service to get to work is so bad as to be unusabe. oh yes the weekly bus ticket is £15, my petrol costs for the sam journey, around £10.
Wow some rant.:D
no rant, some good facts. The public transport system here is either extortionate or non-existant, this persuades people to buy cars, Tax them at £150-£180 / year, MOT them at £40 / Year, insure them at £400+ etc
a SAFER approach would be to issue people with 4 year licenses, eye test and driving knowlege test to renew them. We have people on the road aged 50+ who passed when they were 17 and hold a license until they are 70, these people have NO compulsory eye tests, over 53 years your eyesight can degrade a LOT, and as it does so gradually you may not notice the cumulative effects. Add to that Reaction times slowing down, changes in the law, in a survey a few years ago they discovered a significant number of over 50s had no idea what some road signs meant at all... THESE are the dangers on our roads, not people who sometimes do 50 in a 40 zone at 3am when there is no-one around, not the people who drive at 80-90-100+ on a motorway in perfectly clear weather with no other traffic around.
Logic shows this...
compare the 2 situations below and see for yourself which is the greater danger...
Situation 1 - 30 year old driver, 3am, long straight motorway, perfect visibility, driver has regular eyetests driving a reasonably sporty car, drives along at 100mph, there is nothing in any of the 3 lanes as far as the eye can see, which is about 2 miles.
Situation 2 - 55 year old driver, developing cataracts, has to peer at the speedo and isn't fully aware of the traffic around him / her, driving at 25mph in a 60 zone as that is all they feel safe doing, 1 mile tailback behind them.
Situation 1 is safer, the driver is not endangering anyone, not frustrating anyone, and is driving responsibly albeit outside the speed limit.
Situation 2 - the driver NEEDS to go for an eye test, driving so far below the limit will frustrate drivers behind them, and will result in other motorists taking risks in order to get past the person at the front being overtaken by pedal cyclists.
Which leads me onto another pet rant.
Cyclists, (pedal, not motor)
They have little or no road knowlege, disregard traffic lights as if they mean nothing at all, cut down the inside while you are trying to turn left, have NO legal requirement for driver training prior to using the public highway, often ride side by side, swerve as they slow down, are NOT licensed, the bikes are NOT tested for roadworthiness, and they are NOT required to display ANY form of registration.
THIS needs addressing.
I think the only options drivers have at the moment is to make certain that the present government doesn't get the opportunity to enact this proposal into law and make it clear to the next government that the proposal is unacceptable.
Personally, the only reason I would have a chip in my car (apart from the usual engine electronics and the chips that go with fish) would be a satellite security chip transmitting a signal that allows my car to be tracked so that when someone steals my car the satellite can guide the police helicopter to the location and they can arrest the thief.
If the police want to cut down on dangerously speeding motorists they need to set up a network of automatic speed cameras across the country, set the limit for the camera to flash to the accepted speed limit plus 5 miles an hour ( to allow for the motorist who marginally goes over the speed limit or faulty speedometer etc), increase the fines and penalty points for speeding and then place the maintenance of the cameras and the system in the hands of a new agency (eg Traffic Camera Wardens Agency) set up to maintain the camera network and deal with offenders. This would free up police officers to deal with real criminals and will deal with dangerous motorists who choose to go more than 6mph or more over the speed limit.
Hopefully, we would not only catch more real criminals but also improve police relations with the public. Dangerous speedsters would also pay for their crimes in fines and penalty points and if causing death with a motor vehicle was upgraded as it should be to manslaughter maybe we could save a few lives in the process.
Lord Nikon
26-08-2003, 17:45
Australia tried speed cameras, they cause more accidents than they prevent. There are 2 large warehouses in australia filled with speed cameras they have NO intention of EVER using again, and refuse to sell on as they are such a danger to motorists.
There is a significant difference between speeding, and dangerously speeding, see my post above... and the police SHOULD have the leeway to decide.
dozysplot
26-08-2003, 18:07
HE HE HE !!!
seb:
Isn't it nice to sit on our side of the fence and laugh at all the car owners for a change!!!!!
:LOL: :2up: :LOL:
Originally posted by Seb
Well its obvious what the alternative is... get a motorbike! Where in the article does it say that motorbikes will be fitted with these devices. In my opinion (and yes i am a bkie rider) this is discriminating car drivers.
It would be interesting if they tried to instal these on bikes tho, just thing of the size of 'swerving log'. Bikers swerve to overtake cars in the city centres all the time!!
The UK will become a country full of mototrbikes, and not a car in sight, unless you can abide by every driving law there is ;)
Seb
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Australia tried speed cameras, they cause more accidents than they prevent. There are 2 large warehouses in australia filled with speed cameras they have NO intention of EVER using again, and refuse to sell on as they are such a danger to motorists.
There is a significant difference between speeding, and dangerously speeding, see my post above... and the police SHOULD have the leeway to decide.
The problem is that making the police decide ties them down to traffic duties when they could be freed up to deal with real criminals.
I do however agree with your points about driver licensing, eye-tests, re-tests and proper cyclist training. They would all contribute to greater safety awareness on roads and hopefully improve the level of driving skill and road-sense.
Originally posted by dozysplot
HE HE HE !!!
seb:
Isn't it nice to sit on our side of the fence and laugh at all the car owners for a change!!!!!
For a change?!?
If you weren't all speeding along, breaking the law (which is in place for a reason) then you wouldn't need to worry about speed cameras and the police could get on with so called 'real crime'.
Any crime is real, I'll say it again you can't pick and choose which laws to stick by. Would you say that petty theft or embezzlement isn't 'real crime' just because no one get killed!
Originally posted by dellwear
If you weren't all speeding along, breaking the law (which is in place for a reason) then you wouldn't need to worry about speed cameras and the police could get on with so called 'real crime'.
Speeding is a very real issue which needs to be addressed, but it has to be in moderation. As you aren't a driver you don't realise how easy it is to drift a bit over 30 mph. The police realise this and therefore have power of discretion, they wouldn't have it otherwise.
If all my concentration was on staying at or below 30 mph then I would not be able to pay attention to other important matters on the road such as pedestrians etc.
cjmillsnun
26-08-2003, 20:48
Originally posted by dellwear
If you weren't all speeding along, breaking the law (which is in place for a reason) then you wouldn't need to worry about speed cameras and the police could get on with so called 'real crime'.
Any crime is real, I'll say it again you can't pick and choose which laws to stick by. Would you say that petty theft or embezzlement isn't 'real crime' just because no one get killed!
Do you own a car??
Sometimes a quick burst of speed can get you out of trouble.
Like when some idiot in lane alongside you decides to pull into your lane, when people are behind you (therefore braking hard is dangerous).
I don't condone speeding as a habit, but recognise as a driver (as do the police) that the responsible use of speed is SAFE
Also some speed limits are rediculous. For example, the 70MPH motorway speed limit was not introduced for safety, but because of the fuel crisis. It is time this was repealed. In Germany (where large stretches of Autobahn still have NO speed limit, there are less accidents than over here)
Also some limits are too fast.
I know of some areas where there are national speed limits (60MPH) in areas of single track road (not enough room for 2 cars to pass).
The key to safer driving is not these stupid spy chips (far too 1984 for my liking) or clamping down on motoring laws but education and regular testing of drivers (like every 5 years!)
This should improve the standard of driving by getting bad drivers off the roads, leading to the police fighting REAL crime
dozysplot
26-08-2003, 23:19
Originally posted by cjmillsnun
The key to safer driving is not these stupid spy chips (far too 1984 for my liking) or clamping down on motoring laws but education and regular testing of drivers (like every 5 years!)
Good Call.... There are too many drivers on the roads who amaze me how they ever passed a test. A regular refresher course where drivers can pick up skills and examiners can spot dangreous practise makes sense to me...
dozysplot
26-08-2003, 23:22
Originally posted by Russ D
For a change?!?
these bloody car drivers are usually running us over
:mad: :grind: :mad: :grind: :mad:
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Is there any way we can get the current govt out of power before the next election? :D
www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/ ;)
Originally posted by ntluser
I think the only options drivers have at the moment is to make certain that the present government doesn't get the opportunity to enact this proposal into law and make it clear to the next government that the proposal is unacceptable.
Great, the Tory's get in and we'll have umpteen million on the dole again, the liberals get in and well, who knows, who cares, they ain't gonna are they.
Lord Nikon
27-08-2003, 07:34
Perhaps the time has come for an all new political party?
One who acts FOR the people, not against them...
Originally posted by dozysplot
these bloody car drivers are usually running us over
...whilst the government (whichever party it happens to be at the time) continues to squeeze every penny they can out of us. Insurance tax, annual increases in road tax, fuel prices going up and up, proposed toll charges etc all because the treasury is under the dillusion that if you have a car then you obviously have money.
Scarlett
27-08-2003, 08:20
Actually, I think you'll probably find that those of us that have a car are more likely to pay that bit more to keep it rather then lose it. If they keep adding a bit here and a bit there we'll keep paying it.
The thing that annoys me is that there is no viable alternative to using a car in many areas yet this is the usual excusae that is peddled every time the taxes increase :mad:
And is dellwear actually going to admit to being a non driver/ non car owner ? :shrug:
Scarlett
Originally posted by dellwear
Great, the Tory's get in and we'll have umpteen million on the dole again.
Why?
Originally posted by towny
Why?
It happened last time.
timewarrior2001
27-08-2003, 12:13
theres also a lot of unsupervised untested dothering idiots that ride pushbikes on the road.
Theres the brainless morons of motorbike riders that think 150mph on a motorway is safe. The idiotic ******* that the other day popped a wheelie overtaking me at 80+mph.
The ******** that tailgated me into a traffic jam then kicked my car cos he had to swerve when I braked hard.
Dont just blame car drivers, its road users in general.
Originally posted by towny
Why?
:rolleyes: If only we knew.
To be honest I cant understand people knocking the Labour movement at the moment. Yes people are becoming disillusioned about some of their policy's, but most people are in work and have money in their pocket to spend.
The way the other party's are at the moment I cant see a viable alternative. Most of the rest of the world is either in or just coming out of recession, were not, we should be grateful for that. I'm not saying we should just grin and bear policy's that we don't like, if we don't tell them were unhappy nothing can change but come on things are better now that they were when the labour government came in.
I'm not a staunch Labour supporter and when there is a party that offer something better I'll switch but whats the point cribbing when things aren't that bad. Do you guys not remember the 80's? I'm only 22 and remember what things were like. Not nice.:spin:
Originally posted by Scarlett
And is dellwear actually going to admit to being a non driver/ non car owner ? :shrug:
Scarlett
I can drive but I don't have a car, I just can't afford one at the moment. There is no way I can justyfy £1000+ in insurance for somthing everyone can live without. But when i do drive I stick to the limit, I don't jump red lights, I stick to my lane and don'tdrive like a ****. :cool:
Originally posted by dellwear
[BMost of the rest of the world is either in or just coming out of recession, were not, we should be grateful for that.[/B]
Our Gordon continued Tory spending plans for about two years and has followed a more or less Tory-style economic policy ever since. Only in the last couple of years has he begun to creep back towards tax-and-spend, and if he keeps it up we'll soon see how well we cope with the Global recession. Some of his decisions are likely to have serious long-term consequences. I'm one of the lucky few employees left in UK in a final salary pension scheme, but my contributions have already gone up a huge chuink thanks to Gordon's stealth taxes.
What I'm saying is that after a mere six years in power it is far too soon to sing the praises of Labour's 'economic success'. The Tories presided over rising unemployment in the early/mid 80s because they were brave enough to take on stalinist nationalised industries which were over-employing to a ridiculous extent while simultaneously managing just about the worst productivity levels of any leading industrial nation. They turned things round then ruined it by linking the pound to the European exchange rate mechanism ... and having learned their lesson, the Tories are now largely anti-Euro while Labour can't wait to cause a far worse mess by taking us into the Euro.
By 1997 the economy was improving steadily (why d'you think Gordon decided to stick with Tory policy?), unemployment was plummetting but the electorate was simply tired of the Tories and their 'sleaze' ... something else that pales in comparison with the current spin-obsessed Government's antics.
(No offence but if you're 22 you were born in 1981-ish, two years after the Tories came to power, and you can't have been very aware of political life until maybe 1990. If you're appealing to personal recollection to back your view, you can hardly claim to be seeing the whole picture.)
Now why is this anything to do with car tracking?
It's because of this: The fundamental ideological difference between the Tories and the 'Labour Movement' (interesting that you use that phrase as I think there is a significant difference between the Movement and the current party leadership) is that Tories believe in the freedom of the individual, wherever possible, to make their own decisions and choices. State interference in the life of the individual is as minimal as reasonably possible. Meanwhile Labour's instinct is to plan, control and engineer. It is naturally attracted to schemes that force people to do what they determine is good for them. Nanny knows best, after all.
This is why schemes like this are typically Labour and why putting an end to them is simple - get Labour out.
I really don't see what the problem is with the idea of having a chip in your car, I don't see how this is 'nanny knows best'. The idea here is for the chip to help the police enforce the law (enabling them to get on with real crimes), the law would be the same whether the government was Labour, Conservative or Green.
This is separate from my point made about knocking the Labour government. At the present time our country is stable, more so than it has been for a long while. I'm not saying it will stay like this but people seem hell bent in changing the government (mid term jitters I guess). If it ain't broke don't fix it.
As for sleaze, **** happens, every government has sleaze in one way or another, the Labour government has sleaze in the form of "spin" (media induced if you ask me), the Conservatives were having illegitimate children, and brown envelopes.
I and no doubt the rest of you lead a very boring life, what I mean is were not drug dealers or terrorists, even if chips were in your cars now the government or the police would have no interest in your activity's, unless you broke the law.
Oh, and I do remember the 80's, I remember my dad being out of work for years on end because the mining industry he worked in and tha economy as a whole was in turmoil, at least now those who want a job have one.
Please don't get em wrong, I'm not saying the world is rosey, it isn't, we have a long way to go. Micro chipped passports, ID cards, a national (voluntary) DNA database, local councils need a shake up, as does the NHS and the police, and lets not even get on to the railways. These things do take time as you said Towny but they will come together eventually.
Personal I will vote for which ever party is going to offer me and my country stability and peace, and at the moment the Labour government are the only ones that seem to have a plan. If the Conservatives or the Liberal democrats could show that they will do things better then I'll vote for them, however scrapping the fishing licence is not going to save the country, is it??:rolleyes:
Lord Nikon
27-08-2003, 18:27
Its not JUST about the chip, although it DOES look to infringe the right to privacy and move towards an orwelian 1984esque state, its about the "47 new offences" they want to introduce.
Laws that make things safer are a good thing, but in recent years we have seen WAY too many rights REMOVED from the people.
The only people who have improved their rights in this country recently are criminals and children.
Burglar gets hurt breaking into your house? He will sue you for damages.
Child gets smacked for acting up? you are looking at child abuse charges.
Tell me how THAT improves things?
Tell me how the police being able to charge you with exceeding the speed limit briefly is gonna help the country? irrespective of WHY you exceeded it?
Tell me how the police being able to track the location, speed, and usage of a vehicle helps the country?
Bear in mind that there is ONE instance when you can LEGALLY drive a car without an MOT when it needs one.... That is when you are taking it to or from an MOT Center for a PRE ARRANGED MOT or taking it to or from a Garage for work to be carried out on it for an MOT.
The chip will merely detect you driving without an MOT and prosecute you accordingly. With the police at least you can explain that you are going to an MOT center and they can check, then send you on your way without charging you.
Currently you can not tax a car without the log book, can't get number plates made without a log book. Why?
Why would you want to tax a car that wasn't yours? not likely...
If they want proof of the ownership of a vehicle then why not do as they did before? proof of address.
I found one place back in feb that "bent" the rules, I needed a new number plate for the front of a car I bought from a scrapyard so I could get its MOT sorted. The car passed first time, and was taxed on the last day before the law changed.
I did not have the log book for the vehicle, yet had purchased it legally, MOTd it, replaced a damaged (half missing) front number plate, and registered the change of ownership on time... it was insured fully comp and everything is 100% fine. the time between purchasing and using it was a WEEK.(I had to wait for the insurance covernote so I could tax it, and had to do a couple of small repairs for the MOT)
Same vehicle now?
Day 1, Purchase car and have it transported to your home
Day 2 - Book MOT and do any obvious jobs
Day 7 - Passes MOT, unable to tax until log book arrives
Day 30 - log book arrives, finally able to tax vehicle, 4 TIMES longer to do than before the law changed.
Don't you just love it?
cjmillsnun
27-08-2003, 18:28
Originally posted by dellwear
I really don't see what the problem is with the idea of having a chip in your car, I don't see how this is 'nanny knows best'. The idea here is for the chip to help the police enforce the law (enabling them to get on with real crimes), the law would be the same whether the government was Labour, Conservative or Green.
Right,you have a chip in your car and some a***hole who you are alongside decides to pull into your lane (in the space you are in), you briefly accellerate taking you to 40mph (30 limit). Doing so gets you a fine (and 3 points) for speeding, but if you hadn't an accident would have been caused.
However same situation, with no chip in car and policeman following you. the a***hole gets stopped for nearly causing an accident and done for driving without due care.
Which is fair??
Yes the greens would implement the chips, but they would like to lower the limit to 30MPH on motorways and put car tax up to stupid levels.
The Tories might introduce this, however I doubt it. This is a very 'nanny state' thing and IS very much the preserve of the Socialist movement.
Originally posted by dellwear
I really don't see what the problem is with the idea of having a chip in your car, I don't see how this is 'nanny knows best'.
I have a right to go about my business without being tracked every centimetre of the way. The 'those who have done no wrong...' argument just won't wash. I have (usually ;) ) done no wrong. I just don't trust the State with that kind of information. Why should anyone, even someone with 'reasonable cause' have the right to look in a database to find out exactly where I have been and when? I am a private citizen and what I do, and where I go, is my business and mine alone.
Aside from all the philosophical issues, as usual, those with something to hide will find away round this system. The very people this is claimed to be targeted at will not be caught out.
Alan Waddington
27-08-2003, 18:39
I reckon the chaps who speed excessively will get their cars chipped. Only the law abiding will be caught.
Errm, unless I am missing something, the Government has commissioned a FEASIBILITY STUDY into this. That does not mean it will be implemented in the form described (if at all),
Everyone here (me included) is sounding off as though they have announced it as policy.
Originally posted by scastle
Errm, unless I am missing something, the Government has commissioned a FEASIBILITY STUDY into this. Everyone here (me included) is sounding off as though they have announced it as policy.
This is what is known in Government circles as a "trial balloon". They send up the idea and then see how people respond, then the government decide whether it's worth doing or if it's going to upset too many voters.
Originally posted by cjmillsnun
Right,you have a chip in your car and some a***hole who you are alongside decides to pull into your lane (in the space you are in), you briefly accellerate taking you to 40mph (30 limit). Doing so gets you a fine (and 3 points) for speeding, but if you hadn't an accident would have been caused.
However same situation, with no chip in car and policeman following you. the a***hole gets stopped for nearly causing an accident and done for driving without due care.
Which is fair??
I'm sure you wouldn't get a letter through the door for 30 seconds just over the limit.
Even if you did, you would still be able to appeal.
Maybe there is something wrong with me but am I the only one that can see the good in "black boxes", "chipped passports", and "ID cards"???:confused:
1984 has a lot to answer for.
Scarlett
27-08-2003, 22:40
But the government has a certain experience of how shall we say 'bending' the information it recieves if they don't like what they hear or have decided what they want to do.
How about the Iraq war ? or even the National ID card, they were intending to lump all the (overwhelmingly negative) internet responses into 1 response and say that the majority of people wanted a national ID card.
If they want to chip cars, they'll try and find a way to justify it. I just hope that there is not a big accident opr something where the government can say 'If we had chips, the person responsible would have been bought to justice! or this wouldn't have happened. (remember Dunblane where the net result was to destroy pistol shooting as a sport but leave all the criminals with guns!)
Foutunatly for us, the ? Human rights legislation should take care of this one. It's not the 1984 Orwellian spying that will sink it but the fact that they won't be able to guarentee that the security services/police wont be able to abuse it.
When you also take into account that a) the congestion charge in London is almost at breaking point from the people that have just simply refused to pay and B) the government is just as likely to employ the same/similar laim consultancy firm to impliment this, it ain't goin' nowhere soon.
scarlett
Scarlett
27-08-2003, 22:51
Originally posted by dellwear
I'm sure you wouldn't get a letter through the door for 30 seconds just over the limit.
Tell me friend, would you care to phrase that as a wager ?
Originally posted by dellwear
Even if you did, you would still be able to appeal.
Yes but this takes time and money and at the end of the day, what defence can you offer to a computer record that you speeded up to 70 in a 60 zone (apart from the fact that you were overtaking a slow moving vehicle ?)
Originally posted by dellwear
Maybe there is something wrong with me but am I the only one that can see the good in "black boxes", "chipped passports", and "ID cards"???:confused:
1984 has a lot to answer for.
No, I can see the good in them. But the problem is I can also see the capacity for abuse. Do you really want the government to be able to know exactly where you are every minute of everyday? The real problem is that the people that are supposed to be restrained by these things i.e. the criminals are the same people who will in a VERY short time circumvent them (what the hell, its only one more crime, in for a penny, in for a pound) so that means that the only people that will suffer will be poepl like me and you, the police will spend even more time chasing after use for breaking some obscure by-law because that pushes the crime stats up.
Scarlett.
Originally posted by Scarlett
Yes but this takes time and money and at the end of the day, what defence can you offer to a computer record that you speeded up to 70 in a 60 zone (apart from the fact that you were overtaking a slow moving vehicle ?)
If your over taking a slow moving vehicle why would you go over the limit?
Lord Nikon
28-08-2003, 14:41
Originally posted by dellwear
If your over taking a slow moving vehicle why would you go over the limit?
Umm... because in the highway code it states that when overtaking you should do so as quickly and safely as possible?
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Umm... because in the highway code it states that when overtaking you should do so as quickly and safely as possible?
I think he is asking why you would have to go over the limit to overtake a slow-moving car.
For example, on a well-lit road where the National Speed Limit applies one driver might only be driving at 45mph. In which case, you might have to drive at 50mph to overtake it safely and quickly.
If you have to exceed the limit and go at 70mph to overtake a slow-moving car, it's not a slow moving car!! And there's probably no reason to overtake it anyway as it's probably going fast enough.
Lord Nikon
28-08-2003, 15:20
And sometimes when the road appears clear, t is preferable to get past the vehicle...
Especially when you pull out to overtake, get alongside the vehicle, and they decide to accelerate with you. The car behind has moved up and filled your space, and you find yourself on the wrong side of the road, albeit in a place where you can legally overtake, approaching the speed limit towards a corner, with nowhere to go.
Originally posted by ntluser
I think he is asking why you would have to go over the limit to overtake a slow-moving car.
For example, on a well-lit road where the National Speed Limit applies one driver might only be driving at 45mph. In which case, you might have to drive at 50mph to overtake it safely and quickly.
If you have to exceed the limit and go at 70mph to overtake a slow-moving car, it's not a slow moving car!! And there's probably no reason to overtake it anyway as it's probably going fast enough.
Almost every day on the M1 I sit behind someone in the outside lane waiting to get past, waiting for them to realise there is nothing for them to overtake and they should pull into the middle lane ... only to find when they do pull over, they speed up. I have frequently found myself accellerating well over the speed limit in order to complete an overtaking manoeuvre as quickly as possible.
Speed is not itself the problem on our roads ... inappropriate use of speed is the problem.
keithwalton
28-08-2003, 18:14
well well well i wonder if this is related to the incident mentioned in my post earlier in this thread where the police didnt bother taking any info.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/hampshire/southampton/news/SOTON_NEWS_NEWS4.html
Note link might change should be titled Man quizzed in rape probe
K
cjmillsnun
28-08-2003, 19:54
Originally posted by dellwear
I'm sure you wouldn't get a letter through the door for 30 seconds just over the limit.
Wanna Bet?? you could be speeding for all of 5 seconds and get done by a Gatso!
Even if you did, you would still be able to appeal.
and who would the witness be?? - apathy means that people don't want to be witnesses.
Maybe there is something wrong with me but am I the only one that can see the good in "black boxes", "chipped passports", and "ID cards"???:confused:
1984 has a lot to answer for.
I can see good and bad, the problem is that the government would see it as an easy source of revenue, just as speed cameras are.
With regards to speeding, the link below makes VERY interesting reading, I'll let you make your own minds up.
Statistics:
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,85810,00.gif
Related article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-799810,00.html
Originally posted by dellwear
With regards to speeding, the link below makes VERY interesting reading, I'll let you make your own minds up.
Statistics:
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,85810,00.gif
Related article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-799810,00.html
In areas with an established road safety problem, there is no doubt that a well-placed and highly visible speed camera can make that section of road safer. I'm not sure anyone was arguing otherwise.
The problems, as I see them, are:
1. For years, cameras were battleship grey and often hidden behind trees/signposts. This sat very uneasily with claims that they were 'safety' cameras. If their aim was deterrent, they ought to have been visible in order to deter, not hidden in order to catch out. This has now changed but in PR terms, the damage is done. The cameras' reputation is one of covert revenue-generating device. The blame for this lies at the doors of the police, local councils and, for not putting its foot down sooner, the Government.
2. Speed limit policy in the UK is muddled to say the least. Traffic police are generally agreed that motorway speed limits should generally be 80mph but the Government is resisting this - not on road safety grounds but for environmental reasons, due to increased fuel consumption at this speed. Thus we have a situation where you will not get pulled over for doing 80mph or less, even if you pass a patrol car, and even though you are technically breaking the law. Human police officers are capable of judging road conditions and establish whether someone is driving safely at this speed or if conditions demand caution. A set of roadside sensors would simply record an average speed in excess of the limiit and blindly issue a fine.
On rural roads the situation is equally muddled. It is not unheard of for a council to reduce the speed limit to 30 as a road passes through a village, but then not to increase it again on the way out. The reason? Because there's another village 2 miles up the road where the speed limit needs to be reduced again, and the council doesn't want the hassle and expense of changing the limit up and down again. It's hardly surprising then that drivers often find speed limits unreasonable and learn to hold them in contempt.
To sum all this up, the enforcement of speed limits in this country faces a major PR problem. Existing laws are passed and enforced in an apparently random fashion, bringing the laws into disrepute. And disreputable laws are bad laws as people just don't follow them. It's fine for the chief constable of North Wales to talk about making speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving, but first he has to get people to understand that the law is reasonable, and is being applied and enforced fairly. He might find this approach to be even more effective than his camera campaign.
To relate this back to the black box in cars issue, I'm still opposed to that, not because of its aim to check my speed but because I do not accept that the State has the right to monitor and record every move its citizens make, except perhaps in dire national emergencies.
I am writing in response to Black Boxs In Cars,. I find this very appealing
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this in more detail would be available
for through any means possible at anytime.
Bring the steet lights online change the heads of the lamps so they can SCAN
AND SHED SUM LIGHT fit black boxes into cars 3 quarters of the box will be
ssh hub the other quarter will be for the M.O.T TESTER HE/SHE WILL HAVE a
hand held computer to interact with black box NOW YOU HAVE GOVERNMENT IN
CARS Electronic driving card that slips into a small box under the dash
board Mod Edit (Chris T) Obscene remarks removed the small box will be connected to the BLACK BOX THAT IS FITED
IN THE BOOT OF YOUR CAR WHEN YOU STEP into your Mod Edit (Chris T) Obscene remarks removed car you
slip your SUPREME ELECTRONIC DRIVING CARD in the slot you then eye ball
finger no no no you finger print now IGNITION ON ITS go go go YOU will have
a microchip windscreen that will be connected to the black box,,,,,,,now
part of you windoz screen is a monitor as you drive unthe lamps and it works
out that you are speeding a popup window an the left hand side or your cars
windoz screen will advise you to slow down if you ignore it a policetraffic
division will popup and he/she will tell YOU TO SLOW DOWN if you ignore you
will be awarded with 2 ponts on your driving card IE YOUR CARD AND YOU AND
YOUR CAR WILL BE ON LINE END OFF ..............
edit: spamming section removed (Paul).
I am writing in response to Black Boxs In Cars,. I find this very appealing......
:confused: WTF?
Snip
Are you spamming us by any chance because if so, you have a very bizarre method. :erm:
:confused: WTF?
That's putting it mildly :)
BTW a Google for that phone number brings up two hits to an identical post on another forum, and two for someone in SE19 wanting to buy a bike...
Hi mnorris and welcome to cableforum. :)
Interesting first post that.... I can't see the waitress at the drive in idea taking off tho' ;)
If you are going to do a google search then do it right
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=markc90norris&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wg
Hi mnorris and welcome to cableforum. :)
Interesting first post that.... I can't see the waitress at the drive in idea taking off tho' ;)
Thanks :Yikes:
In areas with an established road safety problem, there is no doubt that a well-placed and highly visible speed camera can make that section of road safer. I'm not sure anyone was arguing otherwise.
The problems, as I see them, are:
1. For years, cameras were battleship grey and often hidden behind trees/signposts. This sat very uneasily with claims that they were 'safety' cameras. If their aim was deterrent, they ought to have been visible in order to deter, not hidden in order to catch out. This has now changed but in PR terms, the damage is done. The cameras' reputation is one of covert revenue-generating device. The blame for this lies at the doors of the police, local councils and, for not putting its foot down sooner, the Government.
2. Speed limit policy in the UK is muddled to say the least. Traffic police are generally agreed that motorway speed limits should generally be 80mph but the Government is resisting this - not on road safety grounds but for environmental reasons, due to increased fuel consumption at this speed. Thus we have a situation where you will not get pulled over for doing 80mph or less, even if you pass a patrol car, and even though you are technically breaking the law. Human police officers are capable of judging road conditions and establish whether someone is driving safely at this speed or if conditions demand caution. A set of roadside sensors would simply record an average speed in excess of the limiit and blindly issue a fine.
On rural roads the situation is equally muddled. It is not unheard of for a council to reduce the speed limit to 30 as a road passes through a village, but then not to increase it again on the way out. The reason? Because there's another village 2 miles up the road where the speed limit needs to be reduced again, and the council doesn't want the hassle and expense of changing the limit up and down again. It's hardly surprising then that drivers often find speed limits unreasonable and learn to hold them in contempt.
To sum all this up, the enforcement of speed limits in this country faces a major PR problem. Existing laws are passed and enforced in an apparently random fashion, bringing the laws into disrepute. And disreputable laws are bad laws as people just don't follow them. It's fine for the chief constable of North Wales to talk about making speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving, but first he has to get people to understand that the law is reasonable, and is being applied and enforced fairly. He might find this approach to be even more effective than his camera campaign.
To relate this back to the black box in cars issue, I'm still opposed to that, not because of its aim to check my speed but because I do not accept that the State has the right to monitor and record every move its citizens make, except perhaps in dire national emergencies.
I agree with much of what you say, local councils should not be responsible for setting limits or being in resposible for anything to do with road safety at all. It's time a national department took responsibility of the whole issue from spped camera to road humps. I complained to the Highway Authority about a very dangerous set of traffic lights installed about two years ago at a T-junction, the local idiot council only placed traffic lights on one side of the road. Lorries often park on the pavement to deliver to the shops, resulting in the one and only traffic light being obscured. It is all down to saving cost and crossing their fingers that no one gets killed. The highway authority said "we are not responsible for that road anymore, speak to your local council" I was never able to find any rules that authorities have to follow.
Most of the dangerous junctions in my area are ones that have been installed with new road schemes within the last 6 years, if you go five miles down the road to a different council area the speed limits are 40mph but similar roads are 30mph in my town. They have placed 20MPH signs at each end of one road, if you come onto it from a sidestreet you have no idea and the police are there with the speed gun often. The signs are actually right on the T junction, exactly in the place where you are concentrating on traffic and not looking up in the sky to the signs.
If these local authorities were really worried about road safety accidents, deaths etc, they would adequately sign these sort of roads and paint the limit on the road surface at regular intervals. Some road calming schemes in my area are downright shocking, as they have introduced some very dangerous hazzards. The council clowns have recently placed two bus stops, not the pull-in type directly opposite each other. This causes chaos as there always seems to be two buses there at the same time with the windows down chatting to one another.
If they want the roads safer, an independant body needs to take control of every road in the country and set the rules for councils to adhere to.
Anyway back to fitting black boxes.
what about cars that have 6 volts systems! I have a couple.
What about cars with no battery! I have one flywheel magneto only.
the plan is back and it looks like its time for a parlimentary session:
alistar darling has outlined plans for government to introduce a pay as you go road travel charges, the scheme using satellite technology involves charging between 2p per mile for rural areas and up to £1.34 at busy times.
mr darling also said the system would replace fuel duty and road tax.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm
stupid idiots :mad:
the plan is back and it looks like its time for a parlimentary session:
alistar darling has outlined plans for government to introduce a pay as you go road travel charges, the scheme using satellite technology involves charging between 2p per mile for rural areas and up to £1.34 at busy times.
mr darling also said the system would replace fuel duty and road tax.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm
stupid idiots :mad:
Key points (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610877.stm)
In theory it sounds like a workable plan but then so did the Euro ;)
Are they going to improve public transport substantually so that people have a real choice whether they drive or not?
I'm waiting for voice recorders to be put in cars, just imagine what they might capture just before the end!
"No no no that's no way to fold a map! Give it here *boom*"
"Slow eh? I think I know how fast I can take a ben-*smash*"
"Mum, dad? I want to be a woman *smash* *bang* *boom* *tinkle*"
Anything over 5.7p a mile would cost me more!
I currently spend £3000 a year on fuel and £160 road tax.
My daily commute is 120 miles with the majority being motorway, I am sure these plans will cost me more. :mad:
the plan is back and it looks like its time for a parlimentary session:
alistar darling has outlined plans for government to introduce a pay as you go road travel charges, the scheme using satellite technology involves charging between 2p per mile for rural areas and up to £1.34 at busy times.
mr darling also said the system would replace fuel duty and road tax.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm
stupid idiots :mad:
Key points (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610877.stm)
In theory it sounds like a workable plan but then so did the Euro ;)
A Department for Transport (DfT) feasibility study concluded last year that a national scheme had the potential to cut congestion by about half as well as providing environmental benefits.
Be interesting to see how the government achieves environmental benefits while scrapping fuel taxes & vehicle duty. As I understand it, you would pay the same if you did a journey using a 5 litre engine as you would using a 1 litre engine. Wouldn't the larger engine use more fuel, therefore pump out more pollution for the same journey? Is this not UNfriendly to the environment?
The other important question, would you make dam sure Labour, never makes Government for a third term ?
What get me is the proposals are being considered but the papers want us to believe its a done deal. I cant see it happening to be honest.
Edit - Just thinking about it, wouldn't it be cheaper for the government to just put an extra levy on fuel and scrap the road tax all together. They could then place tolls on certain stretches of road, surely this would give much the same results without the cost of the black boxes and the public outcry. :confused:
homealone
05-06-2005, 17:37
Be interesting to see how the government achieves environmental benefits while scrapping fuel taxes & vehicle duty. As I understand it, you would pay the same if you did a journey using a 5 litre engine as you would using a 1 litre engine. Wouldn't the larger engine use more fuel, therefore pump out more pollution for the same journey? Is this not UNfriendly to the environment?
I don't see how bringing logic & common sense to this discussion is going to help much, Stu ;)
a simple system where road tax is linked to engine size & increased enforcement of the requirement to have insurance & a road fund licence, would suffice, in my opinion...
Realistically, how long would it take to implement a 'black box' system - given previous disasters in Government IT projects, too long - we need a sensible solution now - not spin & promises for tomorrow :(
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.