egafd.com

Hi one eyed jack

The profit from the congestion charge does not go to Westminster Council.

It goes to TFL (Transport For London).

During the first year of the congestion charge, they said the first investment to be made from the congestion charge profit was in buying 300 new buses, so that routes into central London would have a more frequent service.

one eyed jack wrote:

> The congestion charge is working though. I steadfastly refuse
> to pay Ken anymore money.
>
Isn't the lovely Boris in charge now or has Ken sneaked back in while I wasn't looking?

JonnyHungwell wrote:


But that would be too simple.


You've made two arguments:

1:

> It's like you say, a self perpetuating bureaucracy. More
> charges collected to hire more staff, to send out more fines,
> to build more cameras and extend the zones ? so you can put the
> charges up and hire more staff! Then those friends of the
> government who run the little quangos can justify paying
> themselves 200K. The net effect of these schemes is nil,
> because most people who drive into these areas actually need to
> be there ? so the costs just get claimed back in higher
> charges, higher salaries etc. etc. ..... so in the end we all
> pay more just to keep some arseholes in jobs that don?t need to
> exist.
>

2:
> If they really wanted to cut down the traffic, why not do
> something simple, with next to no overheads, like they do in
> Rome or Athens --- even number cars can only go into the city
> on alternate days, on other days it?s the turn of the odd
> numbers.


Unfortunately 1 cancels out 2. as far as the British are concerned.

People with 'evens' arguing its their right to drive on the 'odds' days and vice versa.

I agree with Sam but the bulk of British mentality is to not give a fuck about anyone else as long as I am OK so trying to sell "do it for the benefit of others" won't work (much).

The congestion charge could work if financial motives operated.

Things like rewards schemes for using Park and Ride facilities etc.

Not so much a free toaster for using the bus but a reduction in council tax for doing it.

Business rates cut for working car schemes etc.

One thing that shouldn't happen is charging essential workers or delivery vehicles

[quote]But the cyclist and the walker don't pay for the roads[/quote]

*sigh* But motor vehicles are the very things that make us keep having to re-lay road surfaces, widen course-ways and re-route everywhere.

[quote]I'm convinced there's something touched with the brain of an individual who would take a bicycle amongst trucks and buses - nobody wants them to die or be injured, but if they are - well, it's really their own fault.[/quote]

*double sigh* Why are cyclists deciding to ride amongst trucks and buses? Why not trucks and buses deciding to travel amongst walkers and cyclists? You're purely looking at this from a motorist's point of view.

Their own fault indeed.... I suppose a woman in a short skirt is 'just asking for it' as well...

I lived in London 25 years ago, and had a job that meant I had to drive around a lot, visiting customers.

It was a nightmare, any journey in London meant crawling along, and I was lucky if I managed more than 15 mph on some journeys.

I assume it is WORSE now, and didn't I read somwehere that the average speed of traffic in Central London is 10 mph.

SO SOMEONE HAD TO DO SOMETHING. IT COULD NOT CARRY ON LIKE THAT.

The congestion charge encourages those people who dont HAVE to take their car into London to look for an alternative (and lets face it, how many people HAVE to take their car into London).

Surely this worship of the car is one of craziest things we do at the moment.

In 20 or 30 years time we will look back at film from today of idiots sitting in their cars in traffic jams and laugh at how stupid we all were.

Sam wrote:

*sigh* But motor vehicles are the very things that make us keep having to re-lay road surfaces, widen course-ways and re-route everywhere.

I'd like to believe thats what I and millions of other motorists are paying their car taxes for. If cyclists had to pay even a fraction of what we pay then I would afford them a bit more respect on this issue.

Cyclists are a nuisance. they use their mobility to jump red lights and sometimes can be a hazard to motorists.

I know. I used to be a cyclist and I still see it going on. And if that was the case about cyclists having equal rights Sam, why not allow them to ride on the hard shoulder of motorways then?

Sam wrote:

*double sigh* Why are cyclists deciding to ride amongst trucks and buses? Why not trucks and buses deciding to travel amongst walkers and cyclists? You're purely looking at this from a motorist's point of view.

I believe roads are for motorists and pavements for pedestrians. I dont object to cycle lanes. Maybe we should have more of those. Are you just loooking at this from a cyclists point of view Sam?

I dont think I'm being unreasonable here. I certainly would afford consideration for cyclists bu tit seems they dont afford the same respect to motorists when they are struggling to ride up roads pumping out sweat as a trail of cars trawl patiently behind them, just because they did not get off their bike to walk their bike to the top.

Goddamn it I'm a tax payer and want to exercise my rights over those who dont pay road tax!!!! Or insurance!!! Or exorbitant fuel prices!!!!

In answer to Guilbert, TFL say the average speed for someone crossing the congestion zone before charging was 16 mph and since charging was introduced it's increased to 23 mph.

I agree with all Jack says in the post above.

And 'Sam': I hate to say this, because I've always had a lot of time for you. But a number of your recent posts have had a distinct WZR-ish feel to them (in terms of tone, style AND viewpoint).

You boys aren't sharing an account are you !wink!?

- Eric

[quote]I'd like to believe thats what I and millions of other motorists are paying their car taxes for. If cyclists had to pay even a fraction of what we pay then I would afford them a bit more respect on this issue.[/quote]

Well, we aren't really in a position to say if the taxes do indeed go to resurfacing &c. &c. All I know is that walkers and cyclists aren't in need of traffic lights, bypasses, multiple lanes, speeding restrictions or constant parenting, nor do they wear out surfaces and create pot holes. I can't see how taxing cyclists would make them any more respectable, in your view. I mean, when you do your weekly shop at Tesco (for example) a certain percentage of the price of food goes to the upkeep of the car-park. Should a walker/cyclist/bus-goer pay less for his bread & milk due to the fact he has no need for the car-park?

"A penny off Tuna for walkers!"; "Cyclists! 2p off Parmesan!" - silly really.

[quote]Cyclists are a nuisance. they use their mobility to jump red lights and sometimes can be a hazard to motorists.[/quote]

All applicable to motorists I'm afraid. Nuisances aren't going to be defended by me. Pointing out a sweeping generalisation is my obvious retort.

[quote]And if that was the case about cyclists having equal rights Sam, why not allow them to ride on the hard shoulder of motorways then?[/quote]

Common sense. As a walker or cyclist, I'd rather, if ill-fortune decides to look upon me that day, be hit by a car at 35mph than at 65mph.

[quote]I believe roads are for motorists and pavements for pedestrians. I dont object to cycle lanes.[/quote]

No! Roads are not for motorists but for travel! The Romans were partial to a road or two - not a Merc or transit van in sight. And as for cycle lanes: I'm all for them, but wouldn't they take up your precious road space? Wouldn't it mean narrower roads leading to more congestion?

[quote]Goddamn it I'm a tax payer and want to exercise my rights over those who dont pay road tax!!!! Or insurance!!! Or exorbitant fuel prices!!!![/quote]

Taxes aren't there to give you permission to exercise right over non-tax payers, Terry; and, let's not forget, you []ido[/i] have a choice. Our great grandfathers, and their great grandfathers, &c. &c. got on just fine & dandy using the legs they were born with. And while you're getting heated about the cyclist holding you up on that hill, think of the fumes you're spurting into the face of the cyclist behind, eh?

We all have our vexations, Mr T.

Flat_Eric wrote:
>
> And 'Sam': I hate to say this, because I've always had a lot of
> time for you. But a number of your recent posts have had a
> distinct WZR-ish feel to them (in terms of tone, style AND
> viewpoint).
>
> You boys aren't sharing an account are you !wink!?
>
> - Eric


Oddly enough I was thinking the same about and the good Officer Dibbs and yourself Flat_Eric !laugh!

Speaking of WZR I got an email off IT with regards to one of my posts.

Baffled me why IT didn't have the stomach to post here is IT banned or something?