大象传媒

Yes motoring the new smoking. U can feel it when u r on road.

What is all the fuss?
Motoring needs to be de-glamourised and seen as a means of getting from A to B (nothing more, except perhaps getting back from B to A). Speed limits on all roads should be enforced by means of satellite technology and fines included along with your monthly toll charges. Road tax should be scrapped, fuel duty reduced and, if we don't like any of these measures then we vote against the party which introduced them (though in 10 years time ALL the main parties will be in favour.)

Is motoring the new smoking? God, I hope so.

I have a car (Ford Ka 1.3). I use it to get to my university placement.

When i have finished my placement I will be in one of two positions:
1. Sell the car
2. Occational use as i will not be using it to get into Uni (for my final year).

I am in full support of encouraging the motorist to reduce their usage to the absolute minimum. Public transport will get better as more people use it. Roads will be safer for cyclists, pedestrians and expecially children.

Is there a downside to the country being weened off the motor car? Don't think so!

Yes, I believe it is and so it should be.
The filthy fumes, selfish driving in built-up area's and many of these drivers have the temerity to criticise smokers as anti social!!

Yes, motoring is the new smoking, and the sooner we wean ourselves off this anti-social habit which is dangerous to our health, the better!

I do drive, but also cycle when I can and I'd love to see improved public transport and facilities for cyclists.

Unfortunately for those of us outside London and the major citys cars are the only viable method of transport between home and work. We should not be priced off the road by extortionate petrol tax and now the potential road pricing until a viable alternative is available.

Its not motoring the Government should be at war with, its the media, sloppy journalism and their (mis)portrayal of the facts. We only ever see the populist press jump on the bandwagon once it is well and truly rolling. No objectivity or attempt to display both sides of the argument. Just a blatant attempt to squeeze more money out of policy whilst having the bare-faced cheek to claim its in the public interest. Perhaps another issue that has highlighted the need to remove media production from the hands of profit-making entities and come up with some new system of media ownership. Is the public interest really served by important national policy decisions being portrayed in such as way (Toll-Tax campaign by the mirror strikes me as a particularly grevious example).

When will people in government realise that the public want to use their cars. Fortunes are wasted on under-used bus lanes. Speeding cameras and congestion charges are being used as additional taxation on motorists. We need to use our vehicles for business, for everyday living. The motor car is here to stay and it is high time that government realised that. If a new political party, The Motor Vehicle User Party, was formed it would sweep to power at the next election!

We always read about the "attack on motorists", how millions are signing petitions against new taxes. But what about those who do not own cars and are for these new measures.

I have not owned a car since I moved to London nearly 3 years ago. I think that those who decide to make needless journeys in their car should pay for it at its actual cost and not be subsidised by my taxes when I choose to use public transport.

I walk past a school everyday in central London, despite the fact that most of the children attending could be walked to school and the narrow one way street with double yellow lines that the school is on, it is always full of congestion from lazy people dropping the kids off. If new measures go some way to deter these journeys then I am all for them.

I do think though that public transport does need to be better funded. It needs to be cleaner, safer and more comfortable.

This Govt. IS at war with the motorist, purely & simply for a quick earner & NOTHING to do with environmental issues.
How can it claim to be Socialist & yet persecute the working man in the way that it does ? We only use our cars for going to work as a rule, to pay our taxes & keep the country running.

We all can't work for the State or the NHS.

Give us a break & stop this persecution now..

Can't they focus on real crime & real social issues, such as the ridiculous immigration levels we are currently subjected to ?!

No, driving is not the new Smoking. Smoking is a choice. Driving is not.

Drivers are simply the easiest target for extra revenue generation,

Presumably the treasury needs this money because revenue from tobacco is reducing.

The big problem with proposals as they are presented currently is that they always are seen as additional costs, which, given the money grabbing government we have at present, they probably are and will remain. However, if the road/congestion charging proposals were to seen actually replace the existing road tax and fuel taxes they would be far more acceptable to most road users as they would be based on usage (the more you use, the more you pay). It would also help if the charges raised were to be seen to actually improve public transport by reductions in bus and, particularly, train fares.

I would love to think driving is the new smoking but it won't be. Governments are far too scared of this vocal minority.

Research has shown that busy roads increase crime, by breaking social bonds and alienating people from each other. It also worsens the plight of the poor by both increasing the cost of, and eventually eliminating, public transport.

These effects are on top of the carnage from the killed and seriously injured. Children of poor families are disproportionately represented in the fatalities as the suburban middle class mow them down on their way to wherever.

Private motoring is intrinsically immoral. The sooner peak oil pushes oil prices out of reach the better.

Last week I found myself scowling at the people - one per car - stuck in the traffic and polluting my walk home. Why do we have to put up with their gas-guzzling and suffer the toxic waste that they spew out? It struck me then that this is exactly the same reaction I have to smokers. Your comparison strikes a chord.
I live in a city with excellent public transport (Brussels) and I imagine that for all of these commuters there is a perfectly good alternative - at least car-sharing!
They need to put their own little comforts down in favour of the health and well being of society.

In terms of taxation, motoring seems to be the new smoking. While this may please some, I fail to see how you can penalise people when the public transport system is simply unable to cope. The trains are overcrowded and when travelling with family, it is often too expensive to travel by train - that is if it is available. Have you ever tried to travel with young children in overcrowded trains. You never get a seat so one wonders what one is paying for.
Frankly speaking, the government is simply getting money to line its own pocket as I ahve yet to see what on earth they have improved.

The car industry from manufacturing to Insurance to the back street mechanics seems to be a very important component of every developed countries economy. What is it that the government want motorists to do? Politicians and trade unionist would be the first to complain when the ailing british car industry lost yet another manufacturer to foreign buy outs etc. Motorists are people who have bought into the lifestyle that the main political parties, when in office have promised, more, more, have, have, no thought of where it would lead.How many MP's are 4x4 drivers, they to are motorists, and also grace and favour ministerial cars

Yes, I think driving has become the new 'smoking'. If the same number of criminals were caught and convicted by cameras which surround us all the time as drivers are, London would be a safer place.

George Orwell was right about Big Brother watching us - only he got it wrong by 23 years.

If we all got out of our cars and went on public transport, the system would go into meltdown. If we all stopped using our cars, revenue pouring into the exchequer would be severely dented. We contribute an awful lot of money which tax on petrol, insurance, road tax, servicing for the car and anything associated with car ownership.

Some people won't be happy until we are on horseback with piles of fertilizer ready to use on our organic gardens.

I don't smoke, I would rather resources were used to regulate people who spill out of pubs ands bars on to the streets and start fights after an evening of drinking. Smokers don't interfere with other people.

Motoring suggests a civilised hobby - a trip to the countryside with the family, or a drive taken for pure pleasure.

Nothing wrong with that. Moderation in all things.

The problem is the indulgent excess of many people's car using behaviours.

Many people use their cars to travel on numberless private journeys where they simply don't have to. As a result they clog up the roads with needless noise, filth and brutally ugly vehicles, kill and maim people, slow the rest of us down, and go on endlessly whining, self righteous, intolerant and inconsiderate of anyone else.

Not unlike many, but not all smokers.

how much more do we have to endure at the hands of this labour govt, since they came to power the standard of life for the middle class person has decreased. Increased population from migration (illegal or otherwise) has ensured that our roads are busier, our health service is put under further strain and the cost to the taxpayer for the benefits system is ever further being exploited.

Having just moved the the country from SE london i have seen my council tax go up 拢400 per year and i get half the services i was used to in london. For the Road scheme that the Govt is putting forward, the congestion charge that came into effect is surely a "toffs tax" no extension was ever going to be moved into the east of london - surely where a high % of labour voters are !!!!!

We pay too much tax on too many things. This 1.5 million people petition is maybe a sign that Labour are on their way out. We pay too much for road usage and nothing seems to improve. Quick fix solutions are not the answer !!!

Surely its time to be more hardline with the policies that labour have put in place and stop being a soft touch. No more "mr nice guy" just for getting public support / votes.

The government seem to be struggling to produce a higher rate of return on the motorist, without using fuel tax. While I agree that we the public should be encouraged to be more green, cut down on emmission and congensgion, typically, the methods favoured by the powers that be, are heavy handed and unfair.

If they really were interested about pollution and heavy fuel use, then an increase in fuel tax would target only those that use a lot of it. The guy in the fuel efficent vehicle wouldn't be hit as hard. Equally, the guy in his mighty 4x4 that only get used to pull the horse box every now and then wouldn't be too upset, unlike the present ill will against 4x4's in general.

The congestion charge is similarly out of step. Why not just make it easier to park and ride, or to build suitable megaparking structures and access. Ah, the one thing against these, is money. Why spend money, when it can be dressed up and charged for instead?

The goverment should start charging vehicles especially lorries who come into the country who are ruining our roads. I tax per mile would be appropriate, take mialage when them come in and before they go out. Road tax and petrol are the highest in the world in this country and speed cameras are a stealth tax, what more do they want. I will never vote for a goverment who treats it citizens like fools.

Yes it is the new smoking 'fad' in as much as it is something that authority can pick on. However, unlike smoking the majority of people in the UK own or have access to a car and use it.

With over 28 million driving licenses issued and a car population of 24 million plus, I look forward to the car lobby eventually kicking out any government that does not understand why people use them and why they should not be heavily taxed.

In today's age public transport does not run in every direction and when it does it does not run very often, and in todays world the the car is safe and direct. Of course authority forgets that they have travel free or have their journies paid for - witness the expenses in the House of Commons and other public bodies.

70% of Londoners voted against exclusion zones but that did not stop TFL, they get free transport - one rule for them and one for us.

Finally who is going to sufer, not the wealthier people of the country but the ordinary working person who will not be able to afford to drive a car of any description

I think that the motoring public already pay their fair share in the form of taxes and other fees related to the upkeep of roads and highways it's time that the public got a break,not the govt.

Ken is clearly the only person in politics who actually has the first idea just how close we're getting to living in a puddle. Make that a frozen lake.

Cars are the only way to get from a to b in parts of the countryside, but not in Central London and if a few people, who are not served by a convenient bus / tube route have to walk half a mile to school each morning, that's nothing like as hard as the kids in Namibia that I've worked with, some of whom walk 20 miles each way to school and back.

If you can, leave the car at home.

On top of that, it's about time the government brought in legislation to make all cars hybrids as a stepping stone to making them all zero emissions. It's not beyond us technologically, it simply beyond our politicians to have the will to do it.

You might like to note, that Toyota is the world's most profitable car company and appears not to be struggling under the onnerous demands of rolling out hybrid cars by the dozen. It's a good start! How ironic it would be if we started to follow those famous copy cat improvers, the japanese! Good for them!

I understand the need for reducing unecessary journeys by car but has the government thought this out. Do most areas have a good enough Public Transport facilities? Many businesses in my area have moved to Science Parks in country areas. To take a bus from one village to another may take two hours but only twenty minutes by car. What about people like Taxi drivers, Hire Car drivers and Executive drivers how will they be charged? More importantly, will we become a Police State with every little traffic incursion being noted and fined? Insurance companies too will want to charge by the mile. It is all very worrying and although I have nothing to hide, it makes me want to leave the country as I just don't want my every move monitored. Who knows who will use the information and for what.

I must back up CSH's comments. Most of the population don't live in London and don't have access to good public transport. I'm fed up with being lectured on using non-existent alternatives by people smug in their metropolitan ivory towers of ignorance.

"at war with the motorist"? - spare me the daily mail

gwyneth dunwoody got it right on Today this AM when she said No 10 had just been very stupid in framing the whole road pricing policy debate as a 'want to pay more to drive' one and then inviting people to sign up to that petition.

there isn't actually room or time left for a debate about whether or not we curb the use of the private car. besides the global climate change imperative, the rampant at-any-cost use of the private car is seriously destroying the quality of life of the majority of us - whether we own cars or not. from pollution to the horrendous scale of road deaths and injuries (a staggering 3,500+ lasty year; always excused as "accidents"; if those people died any other way in our communities it wouldn;t be thought of as an accident), the destruction of communities (look at what roads like the North Circular in Lodnon or Oldham Rd in Manchester have done to the communities they have savagely forced themselves through over time), the sheer amount of time wasted (life is too short for this! there must be some profound existential comment to be made about it!!)

but gwyneth also got it right when she said - everyone seems to think everyone else except them should drive less. my dad said this to me on the phone last night - "i've had a lovely day darling, i drove to southport and back (from manchester: round trip 70 miles, just for a jaunt and a cup of tea near the beach), but the problem was the amount of traffic, i got stuck in a jam on the way back would you believe..." COME ON! WAKE UP! it means all of us.

Labour are at a turning point as regards legacies, future philosophy and all the rest of it. the Tories are in the wings flirting with green stuff, sincerity and policy where it matters still to be decided. this is a quality of life issue that's up for grabs, but someone's got to start leading on it and not being frightened of the inevitable half-wit 'war on motorist' Mail and Express front pages....

I think that charging motorists more is the only effective way to get people out of their cars. Maybe road charging is an option, but I think it would be hard to enforce. I would prefer to see the road tax changed so the greener your car the less you have to pay, I know this is already happening but it needs to be far more aggressive so that gas guzzling 4 x 4s pay many hundreds.

Our economy and way of life are built around traveling. It's ridiculous to price people off the roads without providing an alternative.
Where's the guarantee that public transport will get better AFTER the roads are made too expensive? You've only got to look at the current over-crowding of commuter trains into London to see that this won't be the case.
Road pricing is just a regressive tax. The well off will just pay it and carry on using their cars, while poorer people in rural areas who need their cars will be badly hit.
It's trying to put a sticky plaster over a challenging problem. It needs more imaginative solutions like more flexible working (staggered hours) and working from home, combined with better public transport.

I know this, along with the vast majority of Newsnight blogs it seems, is UK-centric.
Let me give an Irish perspective. Our public transport system is farcical, thus forcing people into their cars. And guess what? One of the key components of the Government's brilliantly-named "Transport 21" scheme is the creation of a massive motorway traversing the west of the country.
Transport 21 - named for the 21st century, not the year 2021, which many believe will come and go before we see it in operation - includes plans for a Dublin and area metro. It was announced 15 months ago but not a sod has yet been turned.
People have little choice but to become motorists, and then they can't believe it when the M50 - the Dublin ring-road - grinds to a halt each weekday morning beneath miles and miles of tailbacks.
Be glad, you Englanders, that you have a choice: car, bus or train. We, on our side of the Irish Sea, do not.

I am surprised, but not shocked, by the reaction of motorists: changing people's behaviour is always met with resistance especially by those who need to change most. The issues of climate change, pollution and global warming are high on the national and global agenda, and no-one could fail to notice the media attention to these issues unless they came from the planet Zog. Transport is the fastest growing contributor to climate change - latest figures from the DfT indicate that it has grown 2% in the last year, and in fact has been growing year on year over the last 2 decades. At the same time people have been asked to voluntarily to reduce their energy consumption and emissions with little effect. The bottom line is that the situation is now so severe, that a voluntary response is not enough. The target is for us to lower our CO2 emissions by 90% by 2030. If people won't do it voluntarily, they have to be forced to - as with smoking.

This reflects a New Labour philosophy: people want changes but they are not going to be the ones to make the changes. It's a total lack of social responsibility which is endemic in this country; where other European countries enjoy a better quality of life across all indicators (including the recent UN one on children), it is always at its highest in those with a stronger sense of social responsibility and reflected in the tax system.

As for the war on motorists: motoring has been allowed to grow unhindered for so long, that any attempt to curb activities will be seen as a 'war'. Motorists do not pay their full costs and never have: they are effectively being subsidised by the rest of society for what is, for all intents and purposes, a private activity and of private benefit.

So it's about time they started coughing up and taking their responsibilities for global warming seriously. At least in London we have someone in Ken Livingstone with the political will and vision to make this happen - for the benefit of all of us.

If the government does not want us to smoke, why, apart from the taxes of course, does it sell us cigarettes.
Likewise, if the government does not want us to drive, why, apart from the taxes of course, does it sell us motor cars. Lets face it if it wasn't for the smokers and drivers the country would be bankrupt

Motoring is not the new smoking. Smoking is a pointless activity that only does harm. Motoring (in moderation) can be a useful activity.

However it has side effects that need to be dealt with. As more and more people start driving, and driving further too, we have to deal with the impact of all this traffic impact on our quality of life, our climate, our towns and cities, our economy and our countryside. Pretending otherwise is just putting your head in the sand.

Some people say we should simply provide more/wider roads for these cars. But those roads are not usually the ones they live near to. And even if everyone affected could be persuaded to accept many more roads, the extra traffic is not compatible with cutting carbon emissions.

It would be helpful if instead of advocating policies that are clearly a nonsense - like masses of new roads - the opponents of road pricing would be honest about what we should do to stop us getting gridlocked.

Yes. Like smoking - driving gives the government the opportunity to stealth tax the poor.

Yes and about time.Public transport in London may not be perfect,but it is a viable alternative for a majority of motorists,many of whom appear addicted to their cars.Bring on MRT(Motoring Replacement Therapy).

Most comment is clearly written by town or city dwellers who benefit from ample public transport but at the same time have to endure fumes, noise and road rage.

The greater part of the United Kingdom is countryside, where communities are widely dispersed, public transport little found and yet where people must still go to work, get the shopping and so on.

Therefore it is clear that we need a transport policy which integrates different needs. Cut back on private vehicles in the town, make their use easier in the countryside.

Come on everyone - let us remember that we are the victims of our own experience and not assume that our opinions are universally valid.

It has been apparent from the start that this government has had an anti car agenda evidenced by a whole range of measures. I can see that the issues need to be addressed. However why not engage the motorist in a debate that is very important to them rather than the covert war that has been waged since 1997. Now that we've been softened up making car ownership and driving a real chore they are now heading for the coup de grace with road pricing. My issue is not the proposals it is the methods used to implement them. I used to be a Labour Party supporter, now I'm just suspicious of this bunch's every move.

Like other privileges exercised partly at the expense of the commonweal and the general public, motor traffic requires regulation. Objections to regulation from the privileged are to be expected. Until better means can be found to regulate safe vehicle speed and noxious emissions, and to reasonably assess the social and congestion cost of traffic, then solutions like speed cameras, congestion charges and road pricing are reasonable and fair.

I drove in this morning from South to North London, no problems whatsover using the free route through, however I am dreading next Monday morning as all the kids will be back at school and as we all know the School run is the only real major contributor to congestion in London

Just another method of Gordon Brown increasing the revenues of his department. Life will soon not be worth living in this country with Big Brother removing all the freedoms we enjoy. I dispair with this government. Public transport is not good enough and yet this so called government decide to take such action and impose another tax on the population.

The (old) congestion zone should be car free anyway and delivery times should be strictly limited to certain times. As for the tax element, tax the fuel - simple - this may prompt those in thier 'Chelsea tractors' and travelling salesmen to think twice before hitting the pedal hard.

Antony Marsh is very fortunate to live in an area with good, reliable public transport. For people who live outside of London (the centre of the universe), public transport is not always an option. People will not be 'weaned off' using their car until there is an clean, safe alternative that is cost effective and goes where they want to go at the time they want to go.

I remember reading that breathing urban pollution in Glasgow was the equivalent of 40 cigs a day. So maybe cars kill more people that way than in accidents? Am I the only one who smells something very bitter and organic chemical when a car accelerates past me these days? I know they took lead-based anti-knock out of petrol but what did they replace it with?

If driving is the new smoking what is the new nicotine patch? I can't see the markets rushing to provide help for motorists who have been taxed out of their cars, especially if that means keeping open rural railway stations and subsidising country bus services beyond 7am.

Motoring is definately the new smoking but if you're not a motorist its just as bad. I drive and use public transport and feel that as a londoner you are dammed whatever way you choose to travel. Ken Livingstone is driving londoners away, he expects us to give up cars and take london transport. It costs 拢2 without an oyster card just to go one stop on a bus - Its a disgrace, it doesn't represent value for money at all. Have services improved? NO. I don't often use the trains in rush hour but a couple of months ago as I was travelling across london I had to miss four underground trains as they were overcrowded when i boarded the fifth train someone in my carraige collapsed due to the heat and this was in the wintertime. I feel sorry for the commuters who endure this every morning and pay ridiculous amounts of money to travel in such cramped conditions. The infrastructure is overstretched and urgently needs modernisation. But if you drive you face the congestion charge, increased fuel prices and taxes, all of it makes you feel obliged not to drive. Watching Top Gear last night I realised it is becoming a guilty pleasure to enjoy driving as Ken Livingstone and all the labour government seem to have deemed driving as a sin. I have been considering selling my car if the tracking system comes in (which inevitably it will because i don't believe the government will listen to its voters who have signed the petition against it), not only because of the cost implications but the fact that i can be tracked at any time, I am a law abiding citizen but do not wish to have my freedom restricted and controlled by any government, but then the oyster does exactly the same tracking exactly where we move within london so we have no privacy either way. Give it a few more years and the congestion charge will have extended to the whole of the M25 zone (you can imagine the london council planning it now) and i will definately have to give up my car and allow myself to be ripped off travelling in dirty, cramped tubes and buses around london....And Ken Livingstone will be looking down at us all and laughing.

Future generations are going to look at footage of the M25 with the same sort of horror and incomprehension with which we now view the Roman 'games'.
The way people live now is just bizarre - 'white flight' middle classes bringing kids up in the suburban fringes whilst driving into the city to work? Commuter trains packed to the gills? If any govt. is serious about global warming we need a root and branch reorganisation of work/land/housing distribution across the UK.

100 years ago 250,000 children died every year - in less than half today's population, many of them from diseases carried by flies that lived in horse manure in the streets. Now 5,000 do, an improvement of 50 times, or 100n times allowing for greater population.

Per head of population, no more people die in British transport systems than in 1850 when most people never travelled further than they could walk.

The enormous improvement in living standards, health, freedom etc that we now have - including rapid transport to hospitals when necessary could never have been achieved without the personal and commercial mobility provided by motor vehicles.

Those who seek to demonise motor vehicles seem to have no understanding whatever that they form an essential - not optional - part of most lives and all businesses. If they want to go back to live in the stone ages and die from drowning in canals, good luck, but they can go without me!

Is it too early to say how heartily sick I am with the London orientated bias of this whole debate? As far as I can see, London is just about the only place in the UK where not owning a car and being stuck at home all day every day is not synonymous.

Why should these carless townies such as Antony Marsh (comment 11) have any say in the debate on national road pricing at all? If they want to vote for local politicians that introduce local congestion charging, thats fine by me, but can they please spare the rest of us from their urban group-think.

No, motoring is the new cigar smoking i.e. the preserve of the rich. People who are less well off are being priced off the roads to make way for the fat cat executive and ministerial jags. The Americans have got the right idea by not paying the tax ... oh dear did I just agree with an American policy !

Yes and it should be.
I only smoke when I do not hinder anybody.
But cars are mostly used for trips under five kilometers (i.e. three miles) that ould be done better otherwise.

Cars used for traveling to and from work require two parking spaces, one at home and one at work. That is 20 m2 per car (180 square feet). A lot od space in an built up area.

Cars fill more than own area in road surface. With an average car occupation of marginally more than one, that is a large chunk of public space per person.

Imagine 30 persons in a street, each in their own car.........................
and the same people together in one bus

cars have encroached much to long on the use of public space to stay unchecked

and then there is the waste in energy.
cars weighing a ton and more to transport 100 kilos of human each.
what a waste.

but I the peacefull pipesmoker am a danger to society?!?!?!?

We would all like to be able to drive around and be the only person on the road, but there is a slight problem, so would everyone else. Free public transport is the only sensible answer with cars banned in all our cities.

The government doesn't seem to have a coherent plan.
1. They try to promote a more mobile workforce
2. They get upset when car manufacturers close plants and people lose jobs
3. They try to reduce peoples use of cars
4. They privatise public transport (those two words seem to be opposites) so that it's too expensive and not co-ordinated and doesn't serve non-profitable routes
5. They tax everything that moves or remains stationary

1 & 4 cause increased use of own vehicles
3 causes 2 and reduces their income from 5
5 could be used to improve 4 but making 4 too good would cause 5 to reduce.

They need to make a realistic plan for transport, bearing in mind the needs of the population and then explain it in such a way that everyone sees the benefits.

Obviously if you live outside the city then you need a car to get to many places or a frequent loss making public transport system must exist, someone has to decide which is best for the country. But to force people to own cars and then make them into victims is wrong.

This government, far from being "at war" with motorists, has been their most reliable, forgiving friend. Drivers commit a range of offences that endanger the lives of others without so much as a thought for their consequences - and this is because they are allowed to commit them with near-total impunity.

Who in his right mind would think talking on the phone while driving is anything other than an egregious gamble with the lives of the public? Yet I see people do it hundreds of times a day. The police have outsourced traffic control to the local authorities, who - yes! - rake in money from systems such as cameras that help keep a lid on speed but do absolutely nothing to stop the many other forms of dangerous driving.

So stop wingeing, motorists. Your behaviour is appalling, from the town centre boy racers to the school-run nutcases in their aggress-o-mobiles. You obviously need reminding that driving is not a right but a privilege - and one that many of you don't deserve.

The congestion charging is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. For example I know of two people who frequently have to commute into West London to work - they have to take their 'tools of the trade' with them, in an estate car. With parking at around 拢32/day, the congestion charge will impose a further serious constraint upon their ability to work as high class decoraters, painters and floor finishers. Suddenly Poles become even more attractive.
Over and above that cars are not purely for practical purposes - they are clearly a masturbatory aid. The planet is doomed; there are far too many Homo sapiens (?). Buy 'em BIG Buy 'em FAST. Jeremy is GOD. Get it while you can. Oh & by the way my Ph.D was on the Microbial Metabolism of pyridine 2,6 dicarboxylate. I have some insight into pollution.

YES< motoring is the new smoking. Ask those stuck in rural area with little or no public transport provision...sometimes the car is the only option. Rural and semi rural bus routes are being axed left right and centre. The one area it will benefit will be the pockets of the railways.. lf the public in good faith turn their backs on their cars and take to the rails watch the price of the train tickets go sky high.!!

I don'T think anybody would complain if the goverment ringfenced the proceeds from congestion charges and used it to improve public transport

The problem with London transport is London itself. If all the high-rise buildings in the City had been required to incorporate residential accommodation as happens elsewhwere then fewer people would need to commute from the suburbs.
In Paris the height of office buildings is limited. The City could have benefited from such a restriction had a modicum of foresight been used.
Icidentally as regards smoking, non-smokers used to have a choice, there were non-smoking restaurants,pubs etc. Now smokers will have no choice.
Mansel.

Motoring is the new smoking. City residents have to endure streams of traffic going past their doors, polluting the air; roads are widened to save a few minutes. Affluent motorists drive in from their attractive dormitory suburbs and then return again at five. Those who are unlucky enough to live on these city highways suffer from the effects of the heavy, and often stationary, traffic on their quality of life. The comparison with the effect of smoking on the innocent non-smoker is striking. The motorist's freedom to drive is a burden on others, who cannot afford to move away to more attractive addresses.

Motorists are treated as the golden goose because they can be easily monitored, caught etc.I would like to see the revenue collected from all aspects motorist transgressions ie cameras etc be made public AND a detailed list of the expenditure of the monies collected.
If a firm, large all small is expected to provide the taxman with detailed outgoings as are charities why shouldn't official bodies give detailed breakdowns of how the revenue collected from motorists is spent.

What if motoring is the new smoking and everyone gave up these BAD HABBITS
What would happen? I've got an idea lets tax the air we breath we can't give that up. The government are two faced on one hand they want us to give up smoking, drinking and to stop driving cars. Yet they need the money they make to run the country and buy weapons to blow each other to pieces.
I work a night shift and have no alternative but to drive a car or motorcycle. Although I can use public transport to get to work I can't get back, unless I want to wait three hours for the first bus home.

I think we motorist are paying too much at present. We pay the highest duty on petrol, a very high price for "Road fund Licence"and now this government want us to pay for actually driving on the very roads we have paid for. Public Transport is a disgrace and highly over priced, they have us both ways. This government is intent on bleeding us dry while putting nothing back.

In London and the bigger cities if you live and work in the same town why have a car? It鈥檚 cheaper to rent a car out if you need to travel out of town for a weekend. It鈥檚 a status thing to own a car, if you don鈥檛 you鈥檙e seen as being slightly odd. If cars are seen as anti social and a menace to society hopefully things will change. The congestion charge, along with an increase on fuel duty should go to subsidise public transport, yet in London the transport system is the most expensive in the world. At the moment London is adopting the stick approach without providing a carrot, no wonder people are unhappy.

Yes,turning motorists into pariahs has been a policy pursued by this government since it's inception. It's cheaper than building roads and less complicated than having a joined up transport policy, apart from which it's an excuse for revenue raising initiatives. The arrogant dismissal of the recent petition is testimony to the tunnel visioned approach that Government ministers display time and again, which allows for no disent.

I don't live in London, with it's covered public transport running from dawn to well beyond midnight between any two points in the city. For the centre of a city of 拢10m of course there should be a congestion charge.

But I do live in a big city and there is irregular and uncovered public transport and there's not too much congestion.

I'm glad I don't live in the sticks any more where one bus an hour going in a direction I don't want to go is the norm.

The problem with this whole debate is that local authorities in places that don't need any form of congestion charging are seeing it as a green light to increase their incomes for doing little or nothing with no positive benefit likely to come from it.

As such I'm against - it just encourages the others.

As far as TAX is concerned it would appear that the motorist is being punished far heavier than smokers.

If there was a half decent, affordable public transport system available then I think I would be inclined to use it but when you consider a round trip to London from Weston Super Mare would cost anything up to 拢120 per person for a decent seat compared to 拢50 fuel cost for a car with up to 4 peaople there is simply no incentive. Not counting delays and tail journeys to stations & parking etc

Is motoring the new smoking ?

One can only hope so, the European Parliament have given up the ghost after just 43 days, saying that a smoking ban is " unenforceable " !

This could well be just another way of squeeeeing out further moneies from the motorist and will end up as payroll rises. I do not drive anymore.

Re: New Congestion Charge - from a purely selfish, pedestrian's point of view, I walked along Holland Park Avenue to Notting Hill at lunch today & it was a pleasant surprise to see and hear the roads quiet & empty now and then. Glad I don't have to drive to work mind.

The important thing is what will the goverment do with the money raised? We know that all surveys into charging for tolls etc show that the cash raised must be put into public transport or it becomes yet one more tax for Mr Brown to have to play with.

This government seem hell-bent on returning us to the days of the ox cart, which might make us environmentally friendly, but there is no way we could we cope with even more bovine excrement that our politicians already generate.
Tony and Ken must think again.

It is - and not before time.

Smoking is entirely recreation; driving is largely about getting to work and getting to the shops. My hour a day commute to and from work by car turns into three hours by bus. Same for my wife. By car I can visit the shops on my way home, whereas by bus I could not (and still expect to get home the same day!). My daughter is wheelchair-bound, and cannot get to school on public transport. My mother-in-law is aged and cannot carry the shopping on public transport. Give us carbon-neutral (bio-)fuel; tax us if you must; but don't imprison us in our house.

The Edinburgh residents were given a referendum on motoring congestion charges, which was firmly rejected. I applaud such a democratic rights.
However, in England, the Londoners were only given "PUBLIC CONSULTATION" which is designed to totally bypass democracy.
I live in Stockport, Gt. Manchester and my Executive Councillors all refuse to even reply to my correspondance, in which I ask the question,"will Mancunians be given a referendum on congestion charges?
I know the answer already, that obviously we will not be allowed to vote in a referendum on this important issue. Motorists taxes will be imposed without any referendum. Democrasy has ceased in England, and particularly in "New Labour Cities" such as Gt. Manchester.

If they had concentrated on improving bus and train services years ago, we would not need any road pricing now!
Public transport is unreliable and overcrowded.
What if you have sick or terminally ill people to take to hospital, there is no dispensation for that, and now that we are closing most A & E depts you will need to mortgage your house to get to the one remaining hospital in your part of the UK!
It is yet another tax on the poor, public transport is more and more expensive every year.
its about time this government stopped spending billions on an illegal war and the successor to Trident and spent it on the citizens and transport problems of the UK!

I took a look at the map describing the expanded London congestion zone. What on earth is all the fuss about?

It's not much bigger than a moderate county town and all of it entirely walkable in distance terms [yes thankyou, I have walked across it!].

The Government appears to be trying to do something to respond to complaints about congestion. Trouble is that too many people can only see congestion as "the rest of YOU lot getting in MY way".

The speed of movement in London has barely increased in the past 200 years - just the volume has increased every time we invent new modes of transport or build bigger roads. It's all entirely predictable. People are above all opportunists. If you create an attractive opportunity people will grasp it - hence more travel not less congestion.

What we (and the government) need to learn is that building roads is not going to reduce congestion. It actually astonishes me that the government are prepared to take on this no-win problem when we could do with some more effort in more tractable ares like crime, education, and health.

Still, fools rush in ... !

I suppose it was only to be expected tjat motorists facing the prospect of being charged for a privilege they have hitherto enjoyed for free would yelp with pain. But we cannot continue as we are now, with ever increasing numbers of cars on the road, attempting to make ever more journeys into our overcrowded town and city centres.

Our major conurbations like Manchester get closer to gridlock every day. Most of the cars jammed bumper to bumper have no passenger other than the driver; only one in every four cars is carrying more than one person. That amounts to 1.25 persons for every 20 or so linear feet of road space. And the highway network as a whole cannot cope.

Congestion charging does not need to apply round the clock; even in central Manchester it would not be necessary between midnight and 06.30 hours. But it is the only form of taxation so far proposed that addresses the cause of highway congestion in our major urban centres. The alternative, even discounting the enormous environmental damage unrestricted car use causes, is gridlock.

I've commented once and I feel compelled to comment again.

Do any of you that are strongly pro car and pro freedom to do what you want have any idea that we are heading towards an ice age in the next 20 years?

We are all in serious trouble, to such an extra-ordinary extent that you should really all get down on your knees and pray.

Watch Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth". The ice over Greenland and the Antarctic is melting. Once the Greenland ice has melted into the North Atlantic, you can kiss goodbye to the Ocean Current System drawing warm equatorial water to Northern Europe. Hello Ice-Age.

We are all for a monsterous shock. We are the ones that have produced this disaster. It's visable. You only have to think back to when we last had a white Christmas.

For crying out loud, help the legislature find a solution. There has not been one constructive point made by any of you.

Amen.

Yes, motoring definitely is the new smoking. It is quite incredible how the government hammers drivers and treats them as a means of revenue raising for the exchequer. They are lucky that the people are so passive and docile in this country that they let them get away with it. In other parts of the world people would take to the streets and force the government to listen to them. Representative governemnt is a dictatorship though because the government have no popular mandate to treat motorists the way they do.

Cars and their drivers provide a 鈥榟ealthy鈥� means to generate income for the government. But 鈥� in turn the government must provide a 鈥榟ealthy鈥� alternative to the car.

Cars used to be a symbol of freedom, now they are a symbol of oppression. In a week when 100 million pounds is spent on implementing the congestion charge instead of investing in facilities for young people, I'm not surprised that the UK is the worst place in the developed world to grow up. More money is spent on 'street furniture' to tax and victimise the car owner in an increasingly 'Big Brother' culture, than parks, leisure, conservation or even the odd tree. This is our world, let's live in it.

Whether or not it's the new smoking is beside the point. These charges will come to be all over the country. At first there will be a backlash, maybe even a drop in numbers driving. However, this will soon pass and everyone will pay the price. Of course the government are well aware of this, so lets not kid ourselves.

A question that I would like an answer to is do other countries have the same stringent MOT test that we have before being allowed on our roads.
A few years ago Southern Ireland did not have an MOT test but they came over and drove on our roads.

At around 拢46 billion per annum or 拢885 million per week, the motorist is paying top price for a third world transport system.
Never forget public transport which is largely run by private companies
depends heavily on subsidies to operate.
Only around 拢10 billion is put back into roads leaving the government with approx 拢35 billion profit per annum.
On top of usual taxes congestion and parking charges are levied together with speed camera fines.
Drivers are paying through the nose but face increasing restrictions, prohibitions and expense to use vehicles without which the economy of the country would collapse.
free flowing traffic is beneficial to all as is recognition that buses often travel half empty whilst consuming 7-12 mpg
Government's only take, so called environmentalists, deride use of vehicles but if people are to be allowed to live normal lives that means being able to travel by the method the majority choose,and that choice hasn't changed,-it's our cars bikes vans and lorries.

No. Comparing smokers to drivers is ridiculous, except that the Government wishes to extract the maximum amount of tax from both groups.
People smoke because they enjoy it or are addicted to it. People drive their cars as a matter of every day necessity and to suggest otherwise is just not facing up to the reality of the lifestyles that people live today. Some fools seem to think that motorists sit in traffic jams and endure the likes of the M25 for fun but they do it because they have to.
Most people use their cars by necessity to for example:
a)get to and from work and in the course of work; - public transport in the cities is badly overcrowded and mostly useless outside of urban areas.
b) shop for all but the lightest of goods; - a taxi or delivery vehicle would create just as much pollution and take up just as much road space as a private car.
c) Move themselves, friends and relatives to activities; - for example, my family travels safely many miles by car to childrens' sporting events that are not served by public transportl.
In short, the use of a car is essential for most people to operate life as we know it and only a massive change of lifestyle for the vast majority of the public would permit a change to alternative transportation methods, (which do not presently exist yet anyway).

If my family's motoring costs were to be increased we would still use our cars but would save money by using older, less fuel efficient vehicles. If costs went up still further, we would have a smaller house or less meals out or would save money elsewhere but the motoring wheels would keep turning. I repeat, cars are essential for the lifestyles of most people, not just a luxury that are indulged in to irritate committed pedestrians.
So, if the cars are likely to keep going come what may, (London is still congested with traffic despite the so-called congestion charge tax), then any road pricing charges or similar would be just another tax so that this awful Government could waste more of our money on the EU, ID cards or whatever other daft new scheme they may come up with next.
Oh, and if the Government really cares about climate change, they should help the Chinese to put out some of the massive coal mine fires that they cannot extinguish and which pump out zillions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere each year, - and save more hot air by keeping Tony Blair's mouth firmly closed.

Of course motorists don't like the idea of road charging: that's the whole point of it! Road charging is designed to persuade people to drive less, to reduce congestion and to reduce CO2 emissions. It isn't supposed to be popular with car drivers!!

One of the problems with democracy, it seems, is that the selfish view tends to win at the ballot box. Individuals won't vote for increased taxes and charges, even though the country and society as a whole will benefit from them much more than they cost.

I'm sure many who signed the petition not to increase congestion charging and some non-committed, would agree with some form of measure to get people out of cars, but the simple fact is that people don't trust this government: Remember Prescott? "If we do not have a proper(sic)transport system in 10 years we will have failed." Or Blair's 'misleading' statements to convince us of the need to go to war against Iraq?

Nuff said.

Sounds like a good analogy to me: smoking destroys the lungs and eventually the smoker. Motoring (amongst other things) will destroy the planet if it's not restricted.

The best way to reduce congestion is to bring public transport fares down. People find private transport cheaper especially when a group is travelling together.
Why an underground return journey in NY costs $3 by underground whereas a similar journey in London costs over 拢9 ($18)?

Public transport has to become for the public by making it affordable, not a punishment for the

Sounds like a good analogy to me: smoking destroys the lungs and eventually the smoker. Motoring (amongst other things) will destroy the planet if it's not restricted.

As usual the government can only think of financial measures. Half wits.
They would be happy to restrict motoring to government officials and the very rich, while the rest of us have to put up with appalling public services. Stop them.
It is evident that people of all nations aspire to freedom of travel and freedom of choice. Go for it.
Things have gone wrong simply because there sre too many of us now to live a free range lifestyle. Reduce the UK population to 3 million and rediscover paradise.
Meanwhile: ban non-emergency motor vehicles completely from inner city areas. For the disabled? Rickshaws propelled by convicts. Obvious.

Tax the fuel. I'l have to say it again, tax the fuel. And again, tax the fuel!

Cheap to collect, unavoidable, doesn't require special 'spy under the bonnet' modifications. Most importantly, the polluter pays 鈥� a Welsh hill farmer who does about 15 miles a week in his very necessary 4x4 with far less CO2 emissions, would pay a lot less than the commuter who does about 500 mile a week to the office, however light or fuel efficient his car.

Just tax the fuel.

Restriction is like prohibition, a waste of time and unproductive. We have had inconsequential governments for some 50 years, they have failed us all. Marking time and thinking up new and necessary taxes is an abysmal approach to visible problems. We have become the backward country of Europe. Free public transport is the solution to too many cars. When will they wake up and become realistic ? Stop taking and start giving.

Is motoring the new smoking? Not yet perhaps, but it soon will be. Personally however, I feel that we as a collective group will not give up our vehicles easily because we are lazy, pure and simple! Even if public transport were improved, most of us would still remain in our cars, because of the perceived convenience of being able to drive the 1000m from our homes to the supermarket for that single pint of milk!
As much as I too hate what the government is doing, the only way to force people off the roads and onto buses and trains is by making it so expensive to drive that they have no choice - double the road tax, double the duty on fuel - but also - triple the amount of available public transport on the roads.

Congestion charges & road pricing are just more ways for this tax and spend government to squeeze more money out of the working population of Britain. Since New Labour and the MOD closed down the shipyard where I used to work last year, I now have to drive a 60 mile road trip to work in Darlington. If this Government think that I and many others like me are going to continue to pay for their gravy train they can think again! I'm fed up of Blair / Brown and co introducing tax, after tax after tax. If road pricing comes in to being I'm giving up going to work and live on the dole. I've paid my taxes and see very little benefit, so I'll sit at home and let this crowd of free loading sleazy leaches tax industry and maufacturing and the tourist industry out of business. It is interesting though to know the MP's who are proposing these schemes are exempt from paying Road Tax and congestion charges and no doubt they will be exempt the road pricing scheme also. They will probably increase their milage allowance to cover any out of pocket travel expenses. Blair and Co are heading for a Motorist revolt, and it's coming soon. This will be New Labour's Blair and Brown Poll Tax, and every working family in the country will be expected to pay. If Blair thinks the Fuel Duty protest were bad, just you wait for the motorist protests, it will bring the country to a standstill, then hopefully Blair and Brown and Douglas Alexander will be booted out of Government and then they can travel in their own cars and pay the same taxes as we do, then they will know what it is like to try and raise a family in "Blair's Britain". It's time to fight this Government, and throw them out!!!

PERHAPS THEY CAME TO GENEVA AND BECAME BORN AGAIN CALVINISTS, HERE THE MOTOR CAR IS VILIFIED QUITE OPENLY AND THERE ARE ALWYS SOME KIND OF ROAD WORKS AND NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE PARKING IS ALMOST NON EXISTENT WHERE IT COUNTS AND VRY EXPENSIVE WHERE IT IS.
IT IS NOT A CAR FRIENDLY PLACE!
BE PREPARED!!!!!

We pay a number of taxes - VAT on the initial purchase, fuel tax, road tax, ins tax, council tax.

And yet the roads on this country are worse than in Africa?

Please explain. Or is this a method to get people off the road.

It has succeeded in that I have stopped cycling. How bizarre?

As a smoking 4x4 driver I feel somewhat under attack.In todays Times' letters,a representative of ASH states that there are 11,000 UK deaths per annum due to secondhand smoke. If he can produce scientific evidence, ie a control experiment to eliminate other factors,I will give up my enjoyable 52 year habit. However, I will not give up the safety of my diesel Rav4 which does 40mpg,gets me through Kent snow,ice and floods and which enables my disabled wife to slide in and out of the high seats-these also enable little shortarse me to drive more safely due to enhanced visibility

Restriction is like prohibition, a waste of time and unproductive. We have had inconsequential governments for some 50 years, they have failed us all. Marking time and thinking up new and necessary taxes is an abysmal approach to visible problems. We have become the backward country of Europe. Free public transport is the solution to too many cars. When will they wake up and become realistic ? Stop taking and start giving.

Congestion charges & road pricing are just more ways for this tax and spend government to squeeze more money out of the working population of Britain. Since New Labour and the MOD closed down the shipyard where I used to work last year, I now have to drive a 60 mile road trip to work in Darlington. If this Government think that I and many others like me are going to continue to pay for their gravy train they can think again! I'm fed up of Blair / Brown and co introducing tax, after tax after tax. If road pricing comes in to being I'm giving up going to work and live on the dole. I've paid my taxes and see very little benefit, so I'll sit at home and let this crowd of free loading sleazy leaches tax industry and maufacturing and the tourist industry out of business. It is interesting though to know the MP's who are proposing these schemes are exempt from paying Road Tax and congestion charges and no doubt they will be exempt the road pricing scheme also. They will probably increase their milage allowance to cover any out of pocket travel expenses. Blair and Co are heading for a Motorist revolt, and it's coming soon. This will be New Labour's Blair and Brown Poll Tax, and every working family in the country will be expected to pay. If Blair thinks the Fuel Duty protest were bad, just you wait for the motorist protests, it will bring the country to a standstill, then hopefully Blair and Brown and Douglas Alexander will be booted out of Government and then they can travel in their own cars and pay the same taxes as we do, then they will know what it is like to try and raise a family in "Blair's Britain". It's time to fight this Government, and throw them out!!!

Simple question.
Why after 150 years has man's ingenuity failed to move on from the basic design of the omnibus?
Buses form the largest fraction of holdups in all towns and city centres,reducing average speed to a walking pace.
- Of course I have the answer.

Simple question.
Why after 150 years has man's ingenuity failed to move on from the basic design of the omnibus?
Buses form the largest fraction of holdups in all towns and city centres,reducing average speed to a walking pace.
- Of course I have the answer.

PERHAPS THEY CAME TO GENEVA AND BECAME BORN AGAIN CALVINISTS, HERE THE MOTOR CAR IS VILIFIED QUITE OPENLY AND THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME KIND OF ROAD WORKS AND NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE PARKING IS ALMOST NON EXISTENT WHERE IT COUNTS AND VERY EXPENSIVE WHERE IT IS.
IT IS NOT A CAR FRIENDLY PLACE!
BE PREPARED!!!!!

J.P.S. GENEVA, SWITZERLAND.

Good Evening

I don't feel like the government has declared war on me. This is all a little hysterical. I don't mind avoiding central London during the day because its busy and polluted. And I don't mind paying more, the more I drive.

However it's when I leave my car, that is to say when I try to park it somewhere, that I'm being made to feel like a criminal. I spend far too much time appealing ludicrous parking tickets issued by contracted parking enforcers, and too much money paying them. Add to this the 拢90 I pay to the council to park outside my flat. The whole parkign thing is really predatory and unfair.

Thanks
KL

I don't WANT to drive around, I HAVE to drive - to go to work, deliver to customers, earn a living, visit my family, buy food, take children to sport and so on.
The government are penalising us because they know we HAVE NO CHOICE but to drive to live our lives and do our work, and however much they charge in taxes and fines, we have to pay.
Effectively, they are taxing, charging and attacking us for going to work, visiting our families, taking children to sport, and so on.
What do they want - that we quit our jobs and go onto benefit, order takeaway, park our children in front of the TV, not visit family and friends?
This is yet more tax on getting up, living a productive life and working. People should be encouraged to do good things, not penalised!

The problem with regulation by taxation is that it usually just stops the less well off being able to afford these things. Taxation needs to be much more sophisticated and only kick in when something is used in excess. Why should a household that has just one small car and shares it's use, be taxed the same as a household with four cars, one for each member of the family? Surely the second, third and fourth car should cost more to tax? Taxation by the local Council, why not? Taxation should be used to encourage responsible use of a car, not to attack all motorists. Why don't we raise the age for taking the test to 18? Why is the M6 toll road so expensive? It's 拢4 for 16 miles, you can do a 100 miles in France for the same cost. Why can't we travel 200 miles in this country without encountering a hold up? We need a motorway network that is intercity and not clogged up with local traffic.Why don't we pay road tax according to mileage in the same way as income is taxed? Yeah difficult isn't it but not rocket science.

Road charges are just another reason to justify our rapacious government sticking their greedy grabbing fingers into other people's money to satisfy the whims and prejudices that consume them. No opposition will be permitted in this increasingly growing police state to foil the idea of close observation of where and when we travel. The money they garner from this scheme will no doubt come in handy to finance the pay rise that MPs were last seeking.

Never mind congestion charges - this is just another tax for Mr Brown to fill the very empty coffers. Dont be fooled by an enviromental excuse - its only the money he wants folks.

Attacking the car is fine if you have an alternative method of travel.
If I lived in London or another city with excellent transport options then I would not need to own a car.
But, I live in the country with no bus or rail for miles around.
When is government going to realise that its urban ideals & policies do not fit into Britain as a whole?

I hope this is just the beginning and I am looking forward to the day that local councils start to introduce congestion charges at the front of the school gates.

Why leave this decision to politicians?
No doubt these overpaid servants will vote themselves immunity.

We need to get away from motoring being a right to execise when we want and view it as the responsibility it is. So much tripe is spoken of driving - it seems to be ok to break the law, speed and kill people. Why? The blessed Jeremy on his motoring show would have us all driving like Bodicea - the more dead the merrier. Grow up. I haven't driven for some years after 30yrs of driving; guess what? My legs still work Public transport takes some working out, but it is possible to use it. Perhaps a good start would be quadrupling car tax on all people of usual child-bearing age, just in case they drive the legless, spoilt and lazy small one to school.

Transport options are fantastic if you live in London. Bus, tube, taxi, train or even bycicle.
I live in a very rural village and have the choice of travel by car or stay at home.
When will our urban focussed government realise that Britain is more than just cities.

Well, it certainly raises a lot of revenue - and no alternative is offered in either case.
Anne

Speeding 19.2.2007
It is inattention and bad driving which kills. Could we ask the Police who put speed cameras on straight sections of the road, how many accidents there are at these camera points? If the cameras are not at accident black spots, then surely it stinks of a revenue raising exercise and will have no effect on the accidents but will have the effect of annoying the average Law-abiding citizen.
In England a recent TV report showed that Cameras had not reduced accidents but had provided much revenue to the Chancellor.
Anyway it is never pointed out that slower speeds mean longer journey times - which makes more cars on the road - which in turn increases the danger. If you halve the speed, you double the number of cars on the road, as people take twice as long to complete their journey.
Speed is involved in all accidents - stopped vehicles don't have accidents. Saying that in 33% of accidents the main cause is speeding is not sustainable. It has been shown that 3% to 5% for the main cause is more nearly correct. We all must tell the truth & the whole truth! 鈥淕ilding the lily鈥� discredits everything. A wrong diagnosis will never fix the problem
A high% of accidents are due to driver error, inattention, drunken driving, using mobile phones, fiddling with the Radio, admonishing unruly children, jaywalking, unrestrained dogs leaping about and barking and now putting on make-up whilst driving etc.
You also need to differentiate between "normal" accidents and those where "no other vehicle is involved." These latter must be due to driver error, except for example where there is a diesel spill.
Putting these in with other accidents masks the true facts.
Many accidents are caused by two incidents which in themselves alone would not result in an accident but do so, when both occur together.
Giving the wrong data will not reduce accidents. You must analyse the accidents, find the root cause and then this can be investigated, corrected and will have of a much better chance of producing the desired result.
Of course catching a burglar is much more difficult than catching a motorist.
1. What is the %increase in the total revenue raised by Brown since Labour came to power?
2. How many extra taxes have been initiated by Labour - e.g. New Car Registration fee (拢50), Stopping 拢zero Road Tax on cars over 25 years old (Stopped in 2000 for 1975 & older)
3. What Increase in Flash Camera revenue?
4. What increase in Parking, Clamping & Tolls?
5. What increase in Fuel Duty & Road Tax? Do "Gas Guzzler" owners who sometimes need these to pull horse boxes, go skiing etc. have to have a second car for normal use?
6. What increase in MOT revenue?
7. What REDUCTION in fatal accidents?
8. What increase in Road building expenditure and is there a surplus over taxes gathered?
The Government treat us like SHEEP taking the MAXIMUM WOOL with the MINIMUM BLEATING.
Rise Up Motorists and get a FAIR DEAL.

There is an unfortunate problem that all the "ban motoring" lobby seem to miss - people in the COUNTRY have little or no access to effective public transport so for me, living in W Devon and running a business here, means I have no option but to use a car.

It's OK for you city dwellers - you have buses, tubes, metros, bike lanes, local community restaurants/cafes/bars/shops/supermarkets - even "farmers markets" - please tell me what am I supposed to do - sell up and move to London?

Please remember all of you "ban the car" mob when you next take a trip to Devon and arrive in my pub wanting to have a good time - I couldn't do it without the internal combustion engine.

I don't hear you beating your chests against flying - or do you take your holidays in the local park?

Why not put your slightly blinkered pressure on motor manufacturers to produce viable electric/hybrid cars rather than moaning about "the car" - or are you all a bunch of wozzers who can get it together to learn to drive?

I have been affected personally by trafic fumes, in that it gives me severe asthma attacks. I also believe that we have to reduce the amount of carbon we use, therefore reducing the amount of traffic is one way. But, to ensure we have good means off getting around the country, our transport infrastructure must be improved. I have always had to travel to get to work, and usually public transport is not only appallingy slow, not very clean it is also very awkward to use (1.45hrs for example for a 30m journey) , we need drastic improvements to make use of trains and buses. Why do we have to use lorries to transport containers? Rail is a logical method provided we have marshalling yards similar to ports so they can transported locally.

It seems that much of the argument here is couched in terms of do we or do we not want this extra tax? The knee-jerk answer would almost always be no. The real question surely is: do we want this extra direct tax or do we want i) to spend longer getting to our destination; ii) to spend more on petrol and car running costs because it took us longer to get to our destination; iii) suffer indirect taxation to improve the road infrastructure to cope with higher vehicle usage; iv) the list goes on. In economic terms, The roads are a scarce resource and there is no current hurdle or cost to motorists using this resource. Surely we need to put one in place. How it is done is less important than that it is done.

Then when we see it working in Europe, perhaps it will be considered here in the US.

It isn't a global warming argument: human travel (including motoring) is a small % of the global warming effect.

It isn't a pollution argument: the Major govt hushed up a report showing that 40% of London's airborne pollution was caused by buses. Livingstone quietly killed off a pollution whistleblower's hotline when it transpired that most complaints were about polluting buses.

It isn't an urban congestion argument. Most car journeys are taken outside conurbations.

It is simply a revenue generation argument. What exactly is "the true social cost" of driving? How is that "social cost" not engendered when a bus or diesel train is taken instead? Is this "social cost" not covered by the 78% of the cost of a litre of petrol that is tax?

There is no moral dimension here, and every time the urban liberal intelligentsia tries to introduce it, they should be challenged. If the true nature of this debate is laid bare - that this is all about revenue generation - then we can get down to the REAL debate. Which is: why do you need the extra revenue, and what will you be spending it on?

Driving a road vehicle is NOT a crime. So until alternative methods to road traffic are provided, eg railway trains, coaches etc., the motorist should NOT be punished.

No adequate , reliable, convenient and afordable method of transport has been made available nationally to travelling by the car user. And, until this is provided the persicution of the motorist is neither ethical or moraly justified.

The prospect of road charges is an absolute disgrace. Along with many other middle aged to elderly people I and my friends use our cars to provise essential voluntary help to charities and organisations who would be unable to afford paid workers. In no way would it be possible for us to function in country areas without the use of our own vehicles. Reoad chargs would make it impossible for us to be able to fulfill the service which we provide to all parts of the community.

No vehicle owner driver would suggest there is no problem with our car usage, however, Where it was once the preserve of the rich it is now an absolute necessity for most and it has brought us all prosperity and freedom. The problem is with short sighted governments in that they have failed to keep the infrastructure inline with growth in numbers. An example: How do we transport goods and services in a city the size of London? That is what people are doing every day. Trains and Buses cannot do this because they have timetables that are restrictive for many. This form of transport also suffers from the threat of strikes and if we were to depend on them we will end up in meltdown. If we ever get the pricing system to work with satelite GPS or other technology then remove all other forms of taxation and make it impossible for a vehicle to exceed the speed limits with inbuilt goveners. The big brother has full control and we only pay when we use.

Result no change in congestion

I think I am beginning to like the Brits again. As I recall, my ancestor, Thomas Boyden, departed Ipswich on the good ship Francis bound for America in 1634 and never looked back. However, with global warming, everything has changed. Road pricing, if I interpret that properly, is a wonderful idea. Motoring is not a right, but a priviledge, and when that activity begins to make life difficult for others, then it has to be regulated. Just think if we raised the price of fuel to five times today's rate. How many people would be on the road without a very good reason? If I had my way, cars would be abolished and ox carts would be the order of the day. I feel certain there is more "culture" in ox power and cow protection than in our stinking, nasty car society.

Successive governments have pursued a policy of centralising services and this has led to increased road travel. Small local hospitals are being closed in favour of large health centres in major towns, office parks created that employees can only reach by car, out-of-town shopping centres that have poor public transport links, the list goes on. Unless you live in a city, the public transport infrastructure simply does not exist to provide an alternative to the car. And if there was the political will, it would still take decades to change. Too many city dwellers, predominantly those that live in London, who enjoy an excellent public transport system, simply don't consider (ignorance or selfishness, I'm not sure)what it is like for people who don't live in the city. I don't have an issue with the principle of a congestion charge but I do with those that ignorantly seek to demonise car drivers.

The whole tax-grasping bunch of them can kiss my high polluting ass. I don't care if the roads are rammed with traffic, care not one jot for the choking tree huggers getting soaked on their way to work, and have no intention of buying a smaller car. They can rob me blind if they like, let them have their thieving little fetishes if it makes them feel better, but I ain't getting on a bus. In fact, I think I'll buy myself a Hummer. Or another Aston.

To the ordinary person who is getting on with life, trying to earn money to pay their mortgage, utility bills, have an occasional holiday and get from A to B as quickly as possible, because that is what we have to do day in and day out, then YES the government is clearly trying to get every last penny out of our pockets.

I have read previous comments from people supporting the charges advocating walking, cycling or use of public transport. But the reality is that most of us do not have the luxury of time on our sides. Work/life balance I hear you say. Again not every job offers that opportunity. And yes I chose my profession and I try to do it to the best of my ability. However hard I try though I would be unable to do my job with any alternative form of transport. So the government has me by the short & curlies. Pay up or else.
Where in the rest of the world do they have the same treatment.

Life in the UK today under Blair and Brown:

1. Blair and Brown are Gods.
2. The Ministers and MPs are demi-gods.
3. Red Ken is almost a God.
4. Everyone outside the divine categories 1 to 3 are unintelligent, spineless, conforming twits who keep voting the Gods in AND paying their exorbitant travel allowances and salaries. Oh, and the Gods' pensions too.
5. Gods are allowed to tax and spend on whatever they want without consultation and thinking. If they run out of money, just tax some more including retrospective taxation, to make up any shortfall.
6. Gods have to make sure they exempt themselves from the burdensome taxes.
7. Since the going is very good for the Gods, and they seem to face no opposition to their divine plans, why bother to set up a really clever and cheap public transport system, eh? In fact, why bother to think up anything good for the country?

This seems like journalism from the News of the World yesterday when they attacked the Government's taxation policy in a simplistic manner.

Are Newsnight and other media outlets not guilty of scare mongering on congestion charging? The Transport Department has not set a price per mile (so the idea of 拢1.50 per mile is just a myth at the moment). Also no decision has been taken on the technology to be used for road pricing. Nor do we yet know if road pricing will be an added onto existing charges such as fuel duty and road tax. The previous Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said that there road pricing should not be an additional tax. The current Transport Secretary has remained more circumspect on this issue, if road pricing was revenue neutral would that be effective? (i.e. accompanied with a cut in road tax). Personally I think it would more sensible to go down the hypothecated route as argued by Charles Clarke in his LSE speech a few weeks back. Any revenue earned from road pricing should be put back into public transport. It's understood that the Treasury is very reluctant to go down the road of hypothecation of tax revenue's. Because they argue it restricts Government freedom to spend on priorities. But as Clarke argues citizens need to feel a 'particular connection to or ownership of the way that their taxes are spent'.

Another thought on road pricing, are we not getting a little ahead of ourselves when one considers that the Government has said it will be introducing this has trials first a national scheme is unlikely to be in place for 10 years.

Before people indulge in the traditional Government bashing, we should all remember that both the Tories and Lib Dems are committed to road pricing. Given the way that media reports taxation policy, I wonder if any party still has the guts to still propose 'green taxes'

Are all parties scared of the motoring lobby?

I've no idea why Newsnight have raised the issue of speed camera鈥檚, if people don鈥檛 want to pay fines then don鈥檛 speed it's really rather simple? Or am I missing something?

So people don't want congestion charging, or road pricing or more expensive petrol and they don't want to sit in traffic when they drive to the shops and work and school. Morons.

Is motoring the new smoking ?

Absolutely right it is.

Both are destructive, addictive, self centered personal indulgences. Both are (or were) near universal habits. Both are surrounded by a culture of denial at the problems they create, and a culture where the perpetrators complain of being victims while everybody around them has to suffer the adverse effects of their habit.

Nobody likes other peoples鈥� smoke, and nobody likes other peoples鈥� traffic.

Of course it is not an exact parallel. Motoring is a means of transport and transport brings personal freedom and economic vitality, but that personal freedom is bought at a cost to anybody who isn鈥檛 driving or does not wish to. Between two thirds and three quarters of all car journeys are within easy cycling distance so there is immense scope for improvement. Many people drive without any thought for the alternatives.

Smokers have long refused to have any consideration for the people around them, and in the end we have been forced to legislate to protect peoples鈥� rights to breathe clean air. Who would turn the clock back ? Would anyone want to work in a smoke filled office or travel on a smoke filled train or plane again. If you are too young to remember what it was like then believe me, you are lucky.

In the same way, the motoring public has long refused to have consideration for the people around them. We all know the problems 鈥� congestion, pollution, death and injury, fear of traffic, road rage, community blight, environmental damage, heart disease and obesity鈥� the list goes on. We just ignore them and carry on driving more and more, putting our own desires before the good of society.

It would be nice if we could deal with this in a reasoned, civilized manner, by consensus instead of confrontation, but it is hard to see that happen. Change will have to come, because we simply cannot satisfy drivers鈥� insatiable demands for resources and roadspace, and because there is genuine injustice in the way non-motorists are treated. In the end it will probably have to be imposed onto a reluctant public. But it will be for the best, and we will look back in 50 years time in the same way that we look back on smoking in the 1950s, wondering why anybody thought that was a good way to live.

Alasdair Massie
Cycle Campaigner and motorist.

The road pricing system using GPS tracking will prove a very rich vein for the Chancellor to tap. Apart from the stated aim of variable road pricing the system will provide data on speeding and parking. Your location in respect of other incidents, accidents or crimes will also be recorded and enable the authorities to track you irrespective of whether you have any involvement or knowledge of any such incidents. If the public are happy with that concept well ok but I have yet to hear any politicians quizzed on these issues, particularly the ability of the system to auto-collect speeding fines.

Although I fully understand that we have a problem with road congestion that must be addressed, it would seem to me that the present proposals are like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The Department for Transport has stated that it would cost 拢62 billion to set up and 拢8.6 billion a year to run. We the car owners could have to pay up to 拢600 to have the neccessary equipment fitted to our car. To this will be added a variable amount of extra tax depending on our road usage.

I am a great believer in simplicity and exactly the same result can be achieved simply by increasing fuel tax. This could be brought into effect immediately, or phased in progressively with no additional cost in administration.

A simple fuel tax combined with removal of the annual vehicle tax would do the following:-
1. Encourage people to use more environmentally friendly vehicles.
2. Encourage people to use public transport where available.
3. Penalise those people who use the roads the most.
4. Reduce public spending on gathering the various taxes.
5. Avoid the undoubted fear that the public will have that 鈥淏ig Brother鈥� is watching them and any civil liberties problems that may arise.

Under the Government's present plans they will need to have a huge rate of return just to recover the 拢8 billion per annum administrative costs. That return will come from all us motorists. In addition to this, all tax payers will have to pay for the 拢62 billion of set up costs!

`

This is just a other tax. The next tax will be the size of a mans penis, in which case I will want a rebate from the tax man.
Many Thanks
Barry

I learnt to drive as a skill I might occasionally need to use, but have never owned a car because I cannot justify it environmentally or socially.

Zipping around on a motorbike meets both criteria, as it does 100mpg, doesn't clog up the road and poses very little danger to anyone else. You simply don't have that car-driver delusion of being in your own untouchable little world, when the road surface is such a short distance away from your skin.

Now that I'm married to a non-biker, I use public transport a lot and that's fine too. In London, I'd say that driving a car was more difficult than using public transport.

But I'd like to see better and cheaper public transport throughout the UK. Is it too much to hope we could try to catch up with the rest of western Europe on this?

I am smoker and have seen the hypocracy of the no smoking gestapo group. First do not smoke in office. Second do not smoke in coffee room where we went. Third go outside to smoke. Fourth complain smokers are spending too much time away from desk. They forced us out there in first place. Now ban smoking altogether. I am a driver and see the same hypocracy as police officers cannot remember who was driving car when caught in speed trap so let off. Member of the public could not say which of her family was in car caught on camera, result 拢60 fine and three points.

Yet another move that has little or no effect in the Metrolopis [sic (as a dog)] other than to raise more revenue to fill Gordon's gaping maw - the hidden hole in his creative accounts.

Those of us who live west of Heathrow have no public transport worth the name and rely on any means of getting around that works.
Drivers in the West Country do not have 'insatiable demands for resources and roadspace,' merely a reasonable right to travel from place to place occasionally. Incidentally that right is severely curtailed during every holiday season when you lot from congestion-charge-land bring your Chelsea tractors down here and get in the way of our lives by bringing us the congestion that we do not have without you.
Why don't you take the train and take the strain off us.

Taxes, stealth taxes and miscellaneous charges have risen inexorably under this Government. The complete absence of original thought is breathtaking. A 'flat fee' road charging policy rides roughshod over the needs of Labours heartland working class support. Is it any wonder the wealth divide is expanding? This is further proof of Labour's abandonment of any semblance of social justice. Judging from the numbers on the petition, it may also be another step along the road out of power.

Driving is an essential part of life in the developed world. Without personal mobility, goods & services don't get delivered, shopping doesn't get done; everything comes to a standstill - back to the Middle Ages. This is where Red Ken Livingstone & his ilk would lead us - he is an extremist not fit to be in the Labour Party.

The real way to deal with congestion is to build adequate roads to meet demand for them, as wealthier economies such as Japan and America have done.

Taxing personal mobility is a regressive tax, not socialist, in fact quite the opposite, as it hits the poor hardest. The rich can easily afford to pay it, while the poor may cease to be able to afford to travel.

And finally, there is no such thing as "improved public transport". Those who push this idea simply want to push people back onto the same dirty old buses.

I saw a comment from a contributor who did not drive a car and supported road charging. I presume this person is not a taxpayer either. The government has suggested (not promised) that these measures will be "revenue neutral". That is not cost neutral. They are lying about revenue neutrality but, even if they weren't, it would not take into account the set up costs which will be countless billions of pounds. The European Galileo GPS system, which is the only one of several competing systems up there that will not be free, needs customers. Europe-wide road charging will provide its captive market. The computer system to run it will be the largest system ever attempted anywhere in the world. You just know it isn't going to work. The new 20 billion pound NHS computer system has just joined a long list of multi-billion pound government computer disasters. Wake up! Do you all enjoy having your hard earned taxes thrown away? This is billions from a government who can't find the money to pay front line workers - teachers, nurses, police - properly.

All this without even mentioning the surveillance and moment to moment speed enforcement. Douglas Alexander says that this will not happen. He is lying.

Private ownership. I want to have a means of travelling from my home to my friends. I like to play music. I like to control the temperature of the my cockpit. I like to be dry when it is raining. I like to stop off at Sainsburys/Asda/farmer's market and load up on essentials. I like to feel safe and secure. I like to have control over my world.
Public transport is different. I have to walk to the bus stop/station. I have to wait for it to arrive. I can feel insecure when it's dark and I'm alone. There is no physical protection. If I stop off on the way I have to wait for another connection. I may have to get a bus, then a train and possibly another bus to get to my destination.
PHEW!! What am I saying.... Cars are good for some things, Public transport is good for others, Bicycles are good for ..errr everything else :-)
JOINED UP THINKING PEOPLE>>>>
Let's have car pools, so we can all benifit from the convenience of cars.
Let's design our public spaces... work, shopping and leisure around PUBLIC transport and NOT ONLY the car.
Everything is designed FOR THE CAR... so surprise surprise everyone prefers to use the car.
Supermarkets are popular because.... they have MASSIVE , FREE CAR PARKS! Not bus terminals, not train stations.
If we want to change WE,, yes WE that means YOU and ME and THEM and of errr... EVERYONE wanting something else and becoming INVOLVED in making it happen. Otherwise it'll always be someone else pooing on our feet @;-)

Yet again more tax. Where is it going? the trains, tubes and buses are awful, no air conditioning, over-crowded, dirty and unreliable.

What about those who have no other alternatives?

Mr Blair you are out of touch. Focus on UK affairs rather than foreign affairs such as Iraq!

are the very poloticions who levy this tax going to pay it for themselves or are they going to add it to their exspenses? i feel they should pay themselves to set an example. its not as if they are going to suffer like everyone else who doesnt earn as much as them. i think it is disgusting

As usual we can see Scots and idiots commenting on and taxing the South East of England. Let's make the people who pay your dole and pensions pay more money so you can all feel good about the environment.

I propose selling Scotland to the USA and exporting all Liberal Democrats to Singapore where they can enjoy the full benefits of their policies.

I already can't afford to pay to take the train to work, now I'm told I can't drive there. Perhaps I should just sponge off the state like all the people who voted for Labour.

Yet again more tax. Where is it going? the trains, tubes and buses are awful, no air conditioning, over-crowded, dirty and unreliable.

What about those who have no other alternatives?

Mr Blair you are out of touch. Focus on UK affairs rather than foreign affairs such as Iraq!

How the hell does the government expect people outside of the M25 to live without private transport. lets see if Mr Ladyman can live in a 2.4 children family with two working parents working quite a far distance.

Do people expect people to cycle 10, 20, 30 miles to work every day?

The state of the transport networks are in chaos. period. sort out the buses, rail, trams, systems OUTSIDE OF LONDON and major cities (i.e. include us country folk) then we can talk about pay as you go road tax.

once again a fraudulant labour government that grew up on the ideals of supporting of the lower classes is kicking us in the balls financially again.

A problem is that the low level of trust of government in general, and this one in particular, means that many believe that money raised from road pricing or congestion charges will not be used to improve transport in any way. Road Tax has been mis-used in this way for years.
The lack of joined-up national, and local, government thinking is obvious; only this year, a new Tesco supermarket has been opened up in this area (Gloucester) - it is out-of-town, can only be easily reached by car; the 'bus service' is derisory. Local facilities such as Post Offices and bank branches are closing.
Equally, the recent extra 'green' tax on fuel and flights will certainly not change anyone's travel habits, they will simply cost a little more.
Where there is no viable public transport alternative, ie in many areas outside London, there is little faith in this idea - hence the response to the Downing St petition.

A problem is that the low level of trust of government in general, and this one in particular, means that many believe that money raised from road pricing or congestion charges will not be used to improve transport in any way. Road Tax has been mis-used in this way for years.
The lack of joined-up national, and local, government thinking is obvious; only this year, a new Tesco supermarket has been opened up in this area (Gloucester) - it is out-of-town, can only be easily reached by car; the 'bus service' is derisory. Local facilities such as Post Offices and bank branches are closing.
Equally, the recent extra 'green' tax on fuel and flights will certainly not change anyone's travel habits, they will simply cost a little more.
Where there is no viable public transport alternative, ie in many areas outside London, there is little faith in this idea - hence the response to the Downing St petition.

If people don't want to pay for using there cars there are many alternatives; Car Shares, Buses, Bicycles, Walking.
Providing that fuel tax comes down and road tax is replaced by the charging and not in addition to I would be happy to pay

As usual we can see Scots and idiots commenting on and taxing the South East of England. Let's make the people who pay your dole and pensions pay more money so you can all feel good about the environment.

I propose selling Scotland to the USA and exporting all Liberal Democrats to Singapore where they can enjoy the full benefits of their policies.

I already can't afford to pay to take the train to work, now I'm told I can't drive there. Perhaps I should just sponge off the state like all the people who voted for Labour.

So road pricing is supposed to help tackle climate change. I'd like to know what contribution will be made to global warming by all the CO2 emmitted due to the electric power consumed by all the computers, and tracking infrastructure that'll be required to implement this scheme.

If people don't want to pay for using there cars there are many alternatives; Car Shares, Buses, Bicycles, Walking.
Providing that fuel tax comes down and road tax is replaced by the charging and not in addition to I would be happy to pay

Road pricing
The discussion appeared to favour the loudest voice
At present policing appears to require the ability to identify transgressions in the easiest way, hence the motorist to improve detection rates.
At one time government was by the people for the people.
Now a select few make decissions with perhaps a review every 3-5 years.
How about getting a government that is judged & continues in power on a day to day basis as do we who have to drive a car as part of our job.
Trying to negotiate a bus/train timetable when in an area on occasional basis is 1. Difficult
2. Almost impossible to work in to appointments.
Regards

I was under the impression that the road charges were to be introduced to combat congestion, how will that work, if as Mr ladyman says it is just another way of paying to use your car, it will actually save some people money. That will not deter anyone from using their cars. Also I work as a Civil Servant, the government has cut down our offices so much so that I now have to travel 15 miles each day to work, there are no buses that run regularly, the train service is unreliable so I use my car. I am only paid minimum wage, so up to now it costs me over 拢200 just to go to work, how much more will it cost under road charges? Will I get a pay rise to cover the extra cost, I doubt it very much.

Road pricing
The discussion appeared to favour the loudest voice
At present policing appears to require the ability to identify transgressions in the easiest way, hence the motorist to improve detection rates.
At one time government was by the people for the people.
Now a select few make decissions with perhaps a review every 3-5 years.
How about getting a government that is judged & continues in power on a day to day basis as do we who have to drive a car as part of our job.
Trying to negotiate a bus/train timetable when in an area on occasional basis is 1. Difficult
2. Almost impossible to work in to appointments.
Regards

Why is it that when this government come accros a problem, the only thing they can come up with is a new tax? I watched all the people on tonights panel snipping at each other and not one, had any ideas only arguments against, thats sad. Look at Brazil, some may say a third world country, yet they today, no longer inport any oil at all, why? because they had the brains to make all vehicle manufacturers, some 10 years ago, only inport vehicles that could run on Ethonol, its cheep, it only gives off H2O and they can make it! result? their air is clean, their better off, the government make more money, and because its as cheep as chips, they can run one of the best public transport systems in the world, everybody wins! Perhaps when the rest of the world has cornered the Ethonol markets and can hold this country to ransom, thats when this government will look at it! By the way, could you ever get bored with punching Mr Ladyman in the head? Smug or what? The Labour party was invented for people like him.

Do we really need an extension of the C- charge zone? This is the government's way of ripping us off more.

They have vehicles which convey them from point A to B (did i mention this is being funded by we the public?)at the same time, they ask us to pay to travel to work.

Do i need to highlight the fact that the fares on public transport is increased every year and transportation in London is nothing to write home about. How then do the government justify the C-charge?

The thing that was not mentioned in your debate was that the government or road planners are actually engineering the congestion to give the case for their charges. If you look at numerous places around london and elsewhere you will see so called junction or street improvements done in the name of traffic flow or safety. The net result of these "improvement" is the reduction of traffic through put.
Additionally the introduction of road pricing gives either government or local councils a way of controlling peoples behaviour in other ways such as if they have an area they wish to promote then they price the the roads accordingly however if their is an area they wish to discourage people travelling to then price the roads higher. The ability to abuse the use of road pricing for party political means is endless.

All in all this proposal fits in with the current Uk high surviellance society.

As long as companies pay 53p+ per mile to unneccessarily use the car when trains and other means of public transport are available people wil drive into work and drive between sites or on vists as a means of supplementing their wages. Public transport is available and makes for a much better work life balance.

Hi
The government needs our respect and trust before we even begin to contimplate what they suggest. Many sensible people do not trust this government, they have been proven to be liars time & time again yet they continue to get away with it. I did not & never will vote labour I am disgusted with the appaling lack of understanding that this gov. has shown to its voters.
Congestion will NEVER be stopped by charging more for driving. If it's too busy people work out their own way round. Charging makes no sense. I earn less now than I did many years ago and I simply will start paying to go to work! How mad is that! There would have to be Never any tax on fuel, and an honest belief that it would never go up, which no one can give so it fails. Then I do not want anyone else to even have any clue that I drove up the road to buy milk (5 miles), it is an uncomfotable, horrible feeling that if someone checked their records they could see that I drove 10 miles that day. It is even worse if you add cameras everywhere, over the road or planet! I just say leave me alone my life is hard enough with out this extra cost. It already cost me 拢250 in fuel alone just to go to London on business, never mind extra charges - it is just mad. I will refuse to pay.

Do we really need an extension of the C- charge zone? This is the government's way of ripping us off more.

They have vehicles which convey them from point A to B (did i mention this is being funded by we the public?)at the same time, they ask us to pay to travel to work.

Do i need to highlight the fact that the fares on public transport is increased every year and transportation in London is nothing to write home about. How then do the government justify the C-charge?

You devote a feature to the second largest cause of climate change - road transport, and then give most air time to a far right troll from The Sun. You get lots of nutty libertarians and just a single environmentalist. Not exactly unbiased reporting there newsnight. Not impressed. Not one bit.

Try driving from Naples to Rome with horrendous traffic congestion and road tolls. Then try Brussels to The Hague and there's little traffic on toll free roads.The roads in Belgium and Holland are better, but quieter. There is one big difference- SUPERB, CHEAP PUBLIC TRANSPORT in Belgium and Holland. Heavily subsidised; probably. We have to bite the bullet and produce the above and the traffic will dramatically reduce- SIMPLE.
Why is this never put to any Government representative. The examples are out there-LOOK!

what is democracy? The people!
does this or any govenment understand this? No!
tell the man from the govenment on this program to take his red tie off he does not understand this is not a badge
its not about cars, golbal warming, smoking bans, NHS its about power and people who go to meetings and "give their time for the good of the people are on an ego trip to screw the rich the poor the workers and the people
I watch with hope the out come of the internet poll
since god for give me i stopped voting a long time ago when i found out that if every person in the country sent a letter to the govenment to ask for a change of policy this or any govenment of the day can ignore the will of the people because they have a mandate to do whats best for the people of the country not what what the people of the country want its politics and we the people have to pay for it

Jon Gaunt....what an arrogant self-centred disgrace!! [and Newsnight's female lightweight discussion "leader" seemed little better!]

He may swan around in his XJS, but the rest of us pick up the tab for his egocentric and antisocial attitudes and activities.

The fact is that road pricing [tax neutral, as the Lib Dem man suggested] is the only way to persuade the great majority of selfish road-users to adopt a more balanced approach to choosing their mode of transport. If they aren't to be charged for their actual road use, then many drivers will feel they have a free option to cause as much congestion and pollution as they see fit. I've no problem with people paying a proper charge for the way they use the roads - but I have a huge problem with them ripping the rest of us off and sticking two fingers up for good measure!!

Introduce road pricing ASAP!!!!

having just watched the so called debate on the new road pricing act, i am now doubly determined to vote this govt out. to hear myself referred to as some1 who doesnt beleive in climate change(ie uneducated fool) was a step 2 far by the govt spekesperson mr ladyman.watching i was reminded of the early 19th century fatcats who where so far removed from reality they may as well have existed on another planet.i refer you to mr ladymans comments, the people who signed this petition are people who are so stupid they dont beleive in climate change. just the last straw.iraq, cash 4 honours etc. when will it end? i have voted labour all my life until the moment i heard the fatuous remarks by ladyman and co this evening.the sun newspaper man who was also on may have his faults i have no doubt. how-ever they failed to realise he is speaking for the majority of his readers and the way the panel treated him was unacceptable. its as if they are totally divorced from reality. i was truly flabbergasted. up and down the country it is the hottest topic of debate, staunch labour supporters such as myself are not prepared to accept this form of taxation which relies on our being monitored as we drive.mr ladyman shot his simple mouth of again and again about these 3 ways they will administer this new charge with-out the need for monitoring.this is akin to a man standing in front of you , picking your pocket on camera and denying it. a total disregard for reality. there is no way on this earth or any other the labour party may now be viviting in dreams where you can bill a person for miles travelled with-out monitoring said travel. to be told on national tv that the labour party has by-passed the space time continium and can guess where you are at any given moment with 100 percent accuracy. well i think that speaks for itself. 1 more way to keep tabs on people whilst over-taxing them.

I certainly agree with the sentiment made by the 大象传媒 - drivers are being penalised and criminalised. The programme featured a spokesperson for Transport 2000 - yet nobody mentioned that this organisation is also trying to get motorists off the road so that they can make MORE profit from the expensive fares charged for public transport.

Like many people in this country I do not trust this (or any other) government to act in such a way that road pricing is not used as yet another means to get even more money out of the motorist. Tonight's Newsnight programme showed this all too clearly.

If this government and their cronies are intent on pricing road use by cars, then maybe they ought to consider:

1. getting HGV traffic off the road and onto rail;

2. taking public transport back into public ownership so that shareholders do not benefit from excessive profits made from an incredibly dire public transport service; and

3. subsidising the service so that fares become realistic and affordable. Most (if not all) other European countries have state subsidised public transport which is affordable - but not the UK. We have to pander to the market economy for even our most basic needs.

I hear the minister saying that the technology will keep you driving private. Being a computer programmer I know that someone will have to have the raw data and so that data will be able to be got at. Either by the police through RIP or one of the other bits of law.

So privacy is a problem.

Will the data be used to charge you if you speed, what happens when the only way to miss an accident is to speed out of the area, so you end up with a fine for speeding!

I Live in the Old - Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire, where for many year in the 70鈥檚 the cost of public transport was minimal and the buses where very well used. Then privatisation which raised the cost and the use of cars increased.

Now having a disability (Back Pain) I will not use public transport as it鈥檚 too painful to use. Pot holes, Road hump and poor road conditions where the road surface is missing so that 陆 inch of tarmac is missing over long areas.

And then there's the cameras, both spot and distance ones, and the mobile ones if you are going to not get court speeding you need a GPS system with the latest camera position alright these are on the internet but to get them you have to either pay a subscription or data charges for mobile access.

Road Tax, Fuel charges which are not used to pay to keep the roads in a good condition.

The different speeds for the same type of road, in Sheffield the speeds are usually 10 mph less then the ones in Rotherham.

One example being the Parkway (A57), at the start M1 J33 it's two lanes and central reservation with a 70mph speed limit in good order, 2 / 3 miles towards Sheffield and the condition of the road changes still two lanes, 3 in places 50 mph and subsidence and poor road condition for the next mile or so and finally 3 lanes down to 40 mph with a speed camera.

the Government should not be hitting all motorists equally, its the big gas guzzlers that need taxing off the road. Like it or not Climate Change requires us all to examine our lifestyles for ways of cutting our carbon emmisions. However, instead of providing financial incentives for people to move to Hybrid/electric cars etc the government has simply spotted another opportunity to rob us of our hard earned money. Car Pools are a great idea......and yes, everything has been designed around the car for the past 50years or so....just as travel once upon a time relied upon horses and carts. The only certain thing about life is Change and taxes........Wake up to whats happening to the World around you ...we are witnessing the beginning of the end for our addiction to Oil and the Car.....and the British State has spotted yet another opportunity to further tax this addiction. Get real.....get a bike and fight for better, cheaper public transport!

I was under the impression that the road charges were to be introduced to combat congestion, how will that work, if as Mr ladyman says it is just another way of paying to use your car, it will actually save some people money. That will not deter anyone from using their cars. Also I work as a Civil Servant, the government has cut down our offices so much so that I now have to travel 15 miles each day to work, there are no buses that run regularly, the train service is unreliable so I use my car. I am only paid minimum wage, so up to now it costs me over 拢200 just to go to work, how much more will it cost under road charges? Will I get a pay rise to cover the extra cost, I doubt it very much.

I'm sick to death of this governments efforts to make owning and driving a car as difficult and unpleasant as they can.
But one thing confuses me - the government says any new road-pricing system will be 'tax neutral'. In the next breath they say the money raised will pay for improved public transport. Well, which is it? Two-faced as usual.

congestion charge

Why is newsnight so fixated about a couple of square miles. your team really needs to get out more. the uk is becoming more federal, not that bbc journalism inside the m25 has noticed. bbc? m25bc more like....

Monitoring cars individually is not feasible. The cost of implementation will prove too high. The system will never be hack-proof. Any form of tracking individual citizens should never be socially accepted.

We do need transport which is reliable and comfortable but cars are getting bigger and heavier while their ratio of size to useful internal space is getting worse. Why is this?

Money should not be able to buy you out of your responsibilities to society, lets wake up and behave like adults. Owning and driving a car is a privellage not a right.

The government can reduce the environmental impact of cars through one or all of the following practical mechanisms:

Introducing personal carbon credits.

Legislating to prevent the sale or use of personal vehicles which output more than an acceptable amount of CO2 or use too many resources.

Encouraging and supporting alternative fuel use, especially LPG, bio-ethanol and bio-diesel.

All of these are more beneficial and more practical to implement than the currently proposed scheme.

TEN KIDS MAY BE KILLED BY A CAR OR LORRY WITHIN THE NEXT 7 DAYS. PUBLISH THIER PHOTOS IN 8 AND LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE

1. Who are all these "motorists"? I am a person, I drive a car, sometimes, when I have to or when it suits. I am not "a motorist".
2. Nor do I feel persecuted by the government. If you object to speed cameras and parking fines, it's easy. Stick within the speed limit and park legally so you don't have to give "them" your money. It's not that difficult to drive at 30mph! Or is it, judging by the behaviour of most people on the roads?
3. And leave your mobile switched off, or don't answer it, if you're driving. Again, it's not that difficult.
4. Personally, I think it has never been cheaper or easier to use a car. Or more expensive, dangerous or unpleasant to use an alternative means of transport, if you're lucky enough, or fit enough, to have an alternative.
5. I am in favour of road pricing.If a commodity is in short supply access to it is limited by price or queueing. I believe the price mechanism is a more appropriate method of allocating resources than queueing, for a developed nation in the 21st century.
6. Road pricing is a stick to discourage car use. The carrot must be better availability of alternatives. To see what can be done, take a look at the availability of alternative forms of transport in Germany or Switzerland, both countries with a high level of car ownership but relatively low levels of car use. I suggest Mr Ladyman or Mr Alexander takes a trip to Zurich or Munich or Hanover, by train of course, to see what an urban transport system should look like.

Having just signed the petition and watched my name quickly make its way from the top to the bottom of the latest 500 list, I notice that the counter showing the number of signatories is not budging from 1,655,607. Perhaps the Government are scared to let the number reach 2 million. Or 3 million. Or 30 million?

I notice almost many of the comments made on this subject were made before the programme aired, and particularly the first few are made by people who obviously are the kind who don't wish to be informed about anything before they respond.

Regretably those people who dislike cars and hate the freedom that road transport gives to the individual would like to take that freedom away by imposing their views on other people.

Barry seems to have summarised the whole debate quite eloquently. Reducto ad absurdum. It seems to be the inevitable consequence of tree hugging idealists and resource guzzling capitalists pretending to have a sensible discussion about an important topic. My ancestors would be horrified at the parlous state of political debate in the country that fought so hard in two world worlds to protect freedom of speech.

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

Nobody on this evening's Newsnight made the blindingly obvious point that "congestion" is already a deterrent in itself to driving. People caught up in congestion spots are there because they have to be, not because they want to be! The Government, along with Ken Livingstone, know that they have a captive population of people who will have to pay the proposed road tax and add to Gordon Browne's coffers. The tax itself can do nothing of significance to deter those unfortunate enough to be caught by it and, hence, congestion will continue until the Government ensures that there are more efficient ways to conduct business and travel to work. "Green" taxes do not deter; they merely raise revenue under an ostensibly moral banner.

My objection to road tolls is quite simple - I, as a motorist, have already paid for these roads with my road fund licence each year, fuel duty, income tax, community charge tax. Why now, now that I am a pensioner, should I see my opportunity to enjoy my freedom to enjoy the roads that I have paid for curtailed in favour of those with much higher incomes!

I am reminded of Concorde. This aeroplane was developed and built with huge support from taxpayers. What happened when it went into service? It was sold off and only the very rich could afford to travel on it - is this going to be the story of our roads in the future?

Road tolls are just another example of the simple mindedness of those that advocate it - if something is in short supply raise the price to reduce demand. This of course does have the desired effect, but always the same effect - those that can't afford it lose out in favour of those who can! I am surprised and angry that a Socialist Mayor of London and now a Socialist government are these that are following this line.

There is an alternative - but it is just the opposite of road tolls and in particular congestion charging in cities.

The congestion in London could have been tackled just as easily by reducing the ability to park when a driver arrived at or near the required destination. First remove all parking meters and the ability to park on public roads in the congestion charge area. Not very popular with the Local Authorities in the area, and perhaps the people living in the Westminster area might have to pay community charges equal to other parts of the country but at least it would be an equitable system affecting everyone equally.

These parking meters are the very thing that attracts motorists to the centre of London - the thought that there will be somewhere to park even if you have to drive around for 10 or 15 minutes to find one - after all the charging is designed to maximise the number of vehicles using them by charging for very short periods and making it an offence to refeed after the initial expiry time. Lets face it, congestion charging is the means by which Ken Livingtstone obtains money that gives him some power!

You see Local Authorities all over the country selling off road space to park, roads which I have already paid for, to raise revenue. The fact that they raise these funds and still large parts of any road in these areas are still covered in pot holes is nothing short of scandalous.

Lets have a debate about control of road space by all means - but please can it be widened beyond the obvious - there's a shortage, lets charge for it!

Yes motoring is the new smoking.I think the proposed expansion of congestion charges are one of many ruses the government are using to fill the financial hole caused by the fall in tobacco tax obtained as more and more smokers quit.

Sadly, for the government, they have overlooked one major fact about a GPS tracked pricing scheme - how do you stop the GPS unit from being blocked (put in a metal box), jammed (flea power transmitter) or just thrown away (resurrected at MOT time). They can't fill the country with ANPRS cameras (although they will probably try) and with 2 million cars already 'off the books' (not traceable) just how is this scheme going to work? This is either a charter for the law breakers or a rallying point for mass civil disobedience (French style). Either way or in combination it will cost them (us) a fortune and not work.

Welcome to New Labour's Poll Tax.

PS Dr Ladyman tonight talks about staying within the speed limit to avoid cost and points - I understand that HE has 9 pts. on his licence and drives round with a GPS box to warn of 'hazards' (speed traps)!

Do we need to do something about road congestion? YES

Is paying on the basis of your actual road usage a good idea? YES

Do we trust this or future governments not to use this as an opportunity to hike another ADDITIONAL tax? NO

Do we trust this or future governments not to use this system based on GPS/Galileo as a surveillance or even control system? NO

Do we trust this or future Governments to make logical fact based decisions? Given they do not do so on Speed Cameras, NO

Do we believe that this or future Governments will be able to convince me of their integrity in this? Given their track record - NO

So the privatisation of the railways gets hijacked by market forces that drive costs up for the consumer. I'm sure someone sold the idea on the basis that it would make train travel better value for money. Well we know that genie is hard to stuff back into the bottle, so like true lightweight flakes, lets flit on to the next 'revenue stream', motorists. When will this government realise that we need a choice offered to be able to make one. If public transport was a cost effective, clean appealing alternative, I know more people would use it. I know there is much focus on localised congestion schemes, but the truth is that the commuting distances in this country must be the highest in western Europe. What do the government expect? Create a protectionist cartel on the railways, price people onto the roads, make them guilty for generating a carbon footprint of a sasquatch and charge them for the privilege. Nice legacy Tony (what was left of it before Iraq).

"The 大象传媒 is not responsible... [for the content of external internet sites]"

let's be honest... why is it needed... because there are too many people with too many cars in too smaller space.

Yes, it all to do with population density.

To fix this you have to spread the number of car journeys over the available road space, and do it 24-7.
This is what happens when you stop building the road system needed to support the population.
That is why fuel tax can't work... we could still drive when we need to.

And can you sell this to the voter... is it spinnable... Nhar, not this time... its the poll tax all over again.

Trust the 大象传媒 to come up with a daft debate like this.and have Transport 2000 the bus sponsored group who represent hardly anybody as one side of the debate.I live 25 miles from London.Never go there because I don't like the place or the Mayor.I will stay out of London and use my car, and Londoners please stay at home and use your smelly bus's if it makes you happy.

Ditto Brian Smith - There are more worthwhile causes that this country should tackle before penalising motorists yet again (as if the influx of Nigerian traffic wardens aren't bad enough - thriving on motorists who park a little way on a pavement to create more room on narrow roads so that fire engines can get through). With the unsafe overpriced public transport only providing appropriate services for those that live within the London area, the rest of us, who aren't providing essential services to this country by working in the stock market earning ourselves million$, and therefore unable to afford a house in the capital, we who do unimportant low paid work like teaching, scientific research, or nursing, in the capital, (all of which rely on a certain level of goodwill on our part ) must live beyond the suburbs in order to afford a roof over our head, and have no option but to rely on a car to get us to work.

Congestion would have been eased by capping the total number of immigrants that move to the capital, since the population growth has added to the shortage of accommodation and staggering inflation of house prices that forces many of us lower paid workers to live further afield.

I'm not aware the conservatives have long supported the car in the sense they would condone pollution; more that they believe in civil liberty and less government interference in people's right to choose. I find it typical that everything the bbc report seems slanted towards the left. It was interesting that the panel didn't have a conservative spokesperson. The most radical views coming from an Australian owned newspaper from the left, I thought ironic and the views of the female who cyles around London, very small minded. I travel 10 miles to work each day and there isn't a bus service that operates effectively between Cheshunt and Hertford, on the outskirts of London. I don't live in the country but the bus services has reduced its services on some routes to one bus every 1.5 hours. For this the local rate payer has to pay for a bus lane which actually causes congestion because it narrows the existing single lane. The one thing that never seems to be mentioned is how much longer a working day would become if everyone had to use public transport as well as the safety aspect of walking home in the winter months from the bus stop.
I don't understand why its preferable to employ people to monitor a cars whereabouts 24 hours a day. What kind of job would that be for any sane person? How many people would have to be employed to monitor the millions of cars. How would they be able to adminstrate the system when they can't even get my tax right? The best way forward if they are intent on penalising the motorists who use their cars more than necessary, is to use the mileage on the MOT certificate which is linked now to road fund and insurance to impose an additional tax, subject to exclusions if the vehicle is used for business. The systems already in place now that we are able to buy the road fund licence by phone or on line. It scares me that if the govenrment proceed with desperate and ill conceived measures to reduce fuel emissions, that it will still be the tax payer who picks up the tab for the setting up of the scheme; which without hindsight could increase unemployment because of the costs of running a business are unsustainable.

Congestion charging is probably a good thing for urban areas provided that we could be sure that the Government would provide the investment for public transport alternatives.

On the basis of their refusal of funds for proposed tram schemes for Leeds and Liverpool as well as their reduction of the service requirement for the First Great Western train franchise implemented last December, I remain cynical.

When the government allows shopping malls to be built outside the cities, allows the cost of public transport (which isn't now public) to rocket which keeps pensioners in poverty, plus others,closes local Post Offices and allows the small local traders to go out of buisness, is it any wonder that use of cars is on the increase. We who make our living in the rural communities and dont enjoy the high earnings of the City workers depend on our cars to make life and living a bit more agreable than it would be without them

This isn't a war against the motorist. It is just another scam by the government to raise yet more revenue. It is nothing to do with the environment nor with congestion on the roads. It is simply another hare-brained scheme to squeeze yet more money out of the hard-pressed general public. This lot might call themselves "New Labour" but they tax and spend just like old Labour.

If Bliar was serious about tackling congestion/pollution he would make public transport to school free for everyone AND COMPULSORY. The second car would not be needed and a lot of drivers with little experience or ability would be taken off the road. But seeing as road pricing is just a way of raising more revenue, he is hardly likely to do that!

Don't speed and you won't get caught in a speed camera. - WRONG

Speed cameras are promoted at faultless when they are not. They can and do give false readings.

The statement is also simplistic.
The frequently changing and inconsistent speed limits along with the huge volume of other information the driver has to contend with means that it is inevitable that he or she will miss some of the speed limit changes and get caught in a speed trap.

Speed of itself is not dangerous - the inappropriate use of speed, either too fast OR TOO SLOW, certainly is dangerous but speed cameras cannot judge the danger and it is the danger that is important.
It might be law but it isn't justice.

SPEED CAMERAS MAKE OUR ROADS MORE DANGEROUS.

If you don't believe me, stop being conned and do some research for yourself.

There is no such thing as a Robin Reliant - much the same as there is no Mondeo Ford (or even a Royce-Rolls).
If it wasnt for some of the antics of Top Gear and the like then we might as well be living in a Police State (ooops - I think we are!)

In an ideal world, all travel would be by public transport. Our environment would benefit and so would we. Unfortunately, at the moment, this is not possible. Unless you actually live close to a big city there is often no option other than to use your car. My daughter's school was closed last school year and the local 6th form college relocated. The one bus provided doesn't come near. The alternative is two long, expensive bus trips to get to school each day. I now drop her off at college, then travel to work, 10 miles away - the only other option would be 4 separate bus trips, which would perhaps get me within 2 miles of the office 2 - 3 hours later, unable to put in a full day. I'm sure there are many people who follow the work available, even if that work is some distance away, rather than adding to the numbers of unemployed. In London and other larger cities a distance similar to this may be covered by a tube or tram - not the case here.

Successive governments have allowed business to be built on the outskirts of towns, and housing to be built further and further away from town centres. Businesses need staff, people need homes. Suddenly it's our fault that we to travel? A plea to the government: give us all an alternative to car use. Then consider ways of taxing those who could, but don't, use public transport, and leave those who have no alternative.

Motorists are easy targets, all lumped together under the same title of "irresponsible polluters".

I don't get the maths. We have (outside London) lousy investment in public transport. Congestion charging is supposed to generate additional funds to spend improving the transport infrastructure, and yet at the same time we're promised that the overall tax take from car ownership won't go up.

Does't this show that the government is now so lazy it can't even be bothered to 'obfuscate' effectively?

I heard someone on TV this evening say that "in a number of areas of the country there is no congestion, and as a result, the rate of congestion charging will be minimal". Hang on a minute, if there isn't any congestion, why should I end up paying ANY more than I currently do? If I travel 12,000 miles per annum, and get charged a minimal 0.5p per mile, that equates to an additional 拢60 per annum - an increase of 36% on my existing car tax of 拢165 a year.

Some qustions:
1. How much money goes into the public purse each year via (i) car tax (ii) VAT on new car sales (iii) fuel duty?
2. How much money comes out of the purse to be spent on road and public transport infrastructure?
3. How on earth can we be 'consulted' on proposals when they are so vague?

The current proposals are so inconclusive that no sane person can put a rational argument against it. They're also so easy to support because you just explain that "we'll not be implementing it like that" whenever someone points out a problem. Lots of heat will ensue, but not much light.

Stephen Ladyman's bizarrely smug expression throughout tonight's Newsnight programme could only be caused by the self-satisfied knowledge that he'll bring in whatever he likes anyway, no matter what we say (yes, I know 2m people signed the petition, but that's because they're all extremists misquoting the proposals, who haven't properly understood what we're going to do.... you see, it's starting already!).

The same kind of 'misdirection' (alright, 'spin') is taking over the council tax revaluations issue. The story seems to be running along the lines that our bills should rise because our houses have gone up in value. But hey! don't the bills go up every year to cover additional council costs anyway? Aren't the house prices supposed to act as a mechanism for sharing the cost of the councils between households?

Surely the amount of tax raised through the revised valuations should be neutral (albeit with some winners and losers as a result of previous mis-valuations?). Of course, they've already done this in Wales and somehow mis-calculated - and managed to recoup more than they collected on the old method.

How convenient. No wonder no-one trusts politicians. Bring back snake oil, all is forgiven...

The sad thing is, it doesn't really matter which party you vote for. As readers / viewers of 'Yes Minister' will already know, the country's really run by the civil service.

Labour's no longer 'New', and it's well and truly house-trained.

Yes yes yes.

Ive been all over the internet sending my views in to oblivion. Im all pecked out now.

Where do I sign up just take the money from me.

I do love reading the posts from the guilty middle classes from London, who have access to public transport!

Jumping on the new 'trendy' bandwagon, ooh, we need to do more... blah blah whilst still applying their chapstick after their recent little skiing jolly to Val Disere!

You cannot apply road congestion charges outside London without huge investments in public transport. How unfair is it to charge mr & mrs average extra just to drive to work? These are the people we are talking about... not you dolly day dreamers who live in some green utopia.

I think most people could stomach the congestion charges if they had seen fantastic improvements in local public transport in all its various forms. Yes something needs to be done about it, but not this. The government have got all arse backwards.

This isnt the 'new smoking'...this will be 'new labour's poll tax'. As the tories found out, little jonny england will only be pushed so far. We are not stupid and we know when somethings just arent fair.

Its a shame Mr Blair mis-managed so much of the NHS money, as the wasted billions could have been used in public transport. Hey-ho, some of the ones applying the chapstick are probably the NHS consultants who helped him with the mis-management!

"On top of that, it's about time the government brought in legislation to make all cars hybrids as a stepping stone to making them all zero emissions. It's not beyond us technologically, it simply beyond our politicians to have the will to do it."

Oh you people really make me laugh, zero emmisions eh? Where the hell do think the electricity comes from that hybrids use... doh pollutting power stations which pump out far more harmful emmisions than any car.
Of course the Gov comes up with a solution, by building more nuclear power stations and what happens? The greens oppose it, yet if you want emmision free cars, lorries etc, nuclear is the only way to deliver enough energy to make the electricty needed co2 free.

BTW my 10 year old car gives out only marginally more emmisions than a prius and as I have not changed it in 10 years I have also helped to save some of the planets resources.

I personnally do not have a problem with city centre congestion charging, as long its only implemented if the local population agrees with it by referendum, as was held in Edinburgh. But as for national pricing no I do not agree and to any politicaiin readsing this I vote too!

There are more effective ways to combat congestion but that would involve tax breaks (for working from home, flexitime, nil VAT on cycles and scooters etc)and this Gov doesn't like giving us our money back. We could also have a national school bus scheme like many of our european neighbours and the states, taking many many cars of the road at peak times.

If DR Ladyman wants fact not fiction, why doesn't the Gov pilot some of the above?? Becuase it's all about raising more tax and not cutting congestion.

Yes something needs to be done but whatever course is chosen it must not penalise the less well off, maybe personal fuel rationing.
The other point I would like to make concerns your reporting which drew the parallel between Britain, France and Germany and pointed out we are more congested. I suppose the fact that both France and Germany with not too dissimilar populations to ours have the benefit of significantly greater land areas in which to put their transport. Might this be a factor? Please pay more attention to factual geography and simple maths before using flawed analogies.

It's clear and simple. The government taxes those that cannot do anything about changing their behaviour to avoid the taxes. This is the underlying principle of all taxes.

The immoral position of the government is that they hype it up in the good it will bring for climate change, pollution, congestion, etc., without using the extra revenues to encourage good behaviours.

Get the frieght back on the rails, free the roads of the juggernaughts.
Not only will this make the railways more efficient and cheaper, by economies of scale, but the roads would be less congested.

If the congestion charging worked so well, why have they had to put the price up? Where has all the revenue from the charging gone - there's no sign of improvements of the public transport infrastructure we were told would improve.

If they put road charging instead of road fund and fuel duty then it could work. Once they've found a foolproof way of charging - and with this gvmts history of IT implementation that's v unlikely - we might find we are better off.

But scrap the road fund and increase the fuel duty and it becomes self regulating with no fancy gimmicks. People that drive the gas-guzzlers will pay more. People who make more journeys will pay more. People who speed will pay more. The more fuel you use, the more you pay. Its simple.

Labour, go now, you have lost the plot.
Please ensure that we pay a further revenue for driving over and above the road tax and huge fuel prices along with huge car insurance.
Do all the above rules apply to LT or PL number plates?
I attempted to use British Rail the other day, not running due to rail works. The service was replaced by a Bus service, waited for 30 minutes for the replacement bus service no bus,so I got a cab instead.

Should have used my car!

As usual with this government it is a case of "it is all the motorists fault, now get your hand in your pocket"
They are trying to say that the only solution to congestion is to charge motorists in the hope that motorists will not use their vehicles. Well maybe an audit of traffic flow might be a good place to start.
People drive beacause there is no logical alternative and they are now driving in congested areas because of poor use of the road network.
Now the government is putting pressure on local councils by saying that they will not recieve funding for new road schemes, unless they take part in road charging trials.
the phrase blackmail springs to mind

Bring on the next General Election

With the development of the society,
we should take good care of both ourselves and the nature!After all,human beings do not like the world which is full of smoke.

Private ownership. I want to have a means of travelling from my home to my friends. I like to play music. I like to control the temperature of the my cockpit. I like to be dry when it is raining. I like to stop off at Sainsburys/Asda/farmer's market and load up on essentials. I like to feel safe and secure. I like to have control over my world.
Public transport is different. I have to walk to the bus stop/station. I have to wait for it to arrive. I can feel insecure when it's dark and I'm alone. There is no physical protection. If I stop off on the way I have to wait for another connection. I may have to get a bus, then a train and possibly another bus to get to my destination.
PHEW!! What am I saying.... Cars are good for some things, Public transport is good for others, Bicycles are good for ..errr everything else.
JOINED UP THINKING PEOPLE>>>>
Let's have car pools, so we can all benifit from the convenience of cars.
Let's design our public spaces... work, shopping and leisure around PUBLIC transport and NOT ONLY the car.
Everything is designed FOR THE CAR... so surprise surprise everyone prefers to use the car.
Supermarkets are popular because.... they have MASSIVE , FREE CAR PARKS! Not bus terminals, not train stations.
If we want to change WE,, yes WE that means YOU and ME and THEM and of errr... EVERYONE wanting something else and becoming INVOLVED in making it happen. Otherwise it'll always be someone else pooing on our feet @;-)

What is the root cause of Congestion?
People!

And what has the Government been doing for 10 years?
Importing People!

Clever or what.

The Government would be mortified if any of it's initiatives on reducing car usage actually worked. That is why all of it's proposals are half baked and unlikely to achieve their goals.

The reason is simple. A substantial reduction in car usage would hit the Treasury hard in lost income on fuel duty.

However, it has decided to demonise 4 wheel dive users and other minority groups as they are easy targets and a majority of Britain would not be unduly alarmed by the targetting of wealthy Kensington and Chealsea residents!

In a country that celebrates multiculturalism and embraces all walks and ways of life, it does seem somewhat strange that discrimination of this sort is tolerated.

I missed the beginning of last nights broadcast. What I saw was the most disgusting display of bad manners on the part of the pro road pricing faction. They continually interrupted and shouted down the others in a display more appropriate to the Jerry Springer or Oprah Winfrey shows. Kirsty Wark made little or no attempt to restrain them.
This is not debate.

If the government wanted to reduce congestion rather than raise funds, all they have to do is pass a law by which people can only use their cars 180 days a year, with very stiff penalties if the limit is exceeded. People would be able to choose which days to drive, take turns to collect children from school, etc. Instead of having booths to collect money, there would be cameras controlling vehicles going into roads or motorways. This is just one way of drastically reducing road congestion. There are others. However, the main objective of all these schemes, like parking control, is not to improve congestion but raise money.

Clearly local and national authorities are anti car. In fact they want to tell us what to do about virtually everything. 'The fury emanating from motorists over road pricing has in large part been due to them feeling disempowered. While car use may be 9% cheaper in real terms than in 1997, drivers see motoring regulation as nothing short of vindictive. It has brought law-abiding Britons the closest they ever come to the criminal law, with punishments that seem unfair and disproportionate. Campaigns against speed cameras, like those against parking fines, are less about money than about the manner of their imposition. The A40 speed trap (50-40-50 along a single stretch of dual carriageway) has joined the hidden camera and the traffic warden with a tape measure in public demonology. To chauffeur-driven ministers this may seem trivial. To common citizens they are a talisman of all that is most arrogant and mean minded in British public administration. The government appears to be raising money by trickery. The government should note why Labour lost the London borough of Camden at last year鈥檚 election. It did so because the borough sent armies of wardens into each neighbourhood to clamp and tow away any car over its allotted parking time. Considerable inconvenience and a 拢300 fine were the price of often a tiny offence. The stated reason for this extortionate regime was that motoring is virtually the only revenue-earner that Gordon Brown allows local councils to keep for themselves. In Westminster it raises more than council tax.'

40 years ago speed limits were unofficially recognised as kind of; well, a bit 鈥榓dvisory.鈥� So if an officer saw a driver exceeding the limit, but driving skilfully in appropriate circumstances he would either turn a blind eye or issue a friendly warning. I KNOW, IT HAPPENED TO ME! But if he saw a hooligan or possible joy-rider then chummy would get his collar felt... CAMERAS CAN鈥橳 TELL THE DIFFERENCE! And what鈥檚 the point of snapping a joyrider in a stolen car anyway? No, as usual it鈥檚 the law abiding who get tricked... And the Police are still using the inaccurate LTI 20.20 hand held speed (revenue) camera despite the David Lyall court ruling.

The juveniles who now run things have inherited these speed limits and are applying them in a way they were never meant to be applied. And why are the road safety TV ads always aimed at drivers and never at the children who run into the road? Remember the Green Cross Code? I do... I don't want to kill children but if they stayed on the pavement...

Why are there too many cars on the road? Because the 'authorities' let public transport go to rack and ruin. So everyone had to get a car and got used to having it available 24x7. And now they're telling us it's our fault!

OK, if we are to have road pricing, it should also have an element of how much time you take up road space, moving or parked. So if you block the Queen's highway 24/7 by parking in the street you pay another say 拢5,000 pa. That would be fair, sensible and would ease the massive congestion caused by street parking. It might even get some garages cleaned out and used for their proper purpose...

The Newsnight 鈥榙ebate鈥� had only the petitioner and John Gaunt against, with two MPs and two 鈥榓gitators鈥� for. Not well balanced I thought. Where was James May? And the woman who talked rubbish, usually when it wasn鈥檛 her turn should not be invited back until she learns some manners...

Still the petition was a great blow against Blair鈥檚 arrogance...

Motoring can NEVER be the "New Smoking" .......... because unlike Smoking that does NOTHING BUT HARM, motoring does have some useful features.

Like almost everything in this world, whether it be the latest medicines, re-charging your batteries with a holiday, having a drink or even eating food ....... no matter how good it may be for you .......there are usually some HARMFUL SIDE EFFECTS, and so it is with the car.

Many of us, especially those living in rural areas, just couldn't live without a car.

It's true that in big cities, like London for example, where you have The Tube, Hundreds of Buses and Thousands of Taxis, the car is little more than a Money Eating, Road Clogging, Pollution Spewing, Resource Gobbling, "Nasty", that most people could easily do without.

One day we will eventually get a government that discovers that "Public Services" should actually "PROVIDE A SERVICE FOR THE PUBLIC", and DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE A PROFIT.

When that happens we will finally get a Public Transport Service that will be so good, that people will CHOOSE to use it instead of their cars.

There is a "Carrot & Stick" method to solving every problem. Unfortunately when it comes to Transport, our STUPID Government only seems to know about the "Stick".

They believe that if you hurt people hard enough for using their cars, that they will eventually stop using them. But as long as we have NO ALTERNATIVE, or at best an Expensive, Dirty, Slow, Unreliable Alternative, then it just isn't going to happen.

Motoring can NEVER be the "New Smoking" .......... because unlike Smoking that does NOTHING BUT HARM, motoring does have some useful features.

Like almost everything in this world, whether it be the latest medicines, re-charging your batteries with a holiday, having a drink or even eating food ....... no matter how good it may be for you .......there are usually some HARMFUL SIDE EFFECTS, and so it is with the car.

Many of us, especially those living in rural areas, just couldn't live without a car.

It's true that in big cities, like London for example, where you have The Tube, Hundreds of Buses and Thousands of Taxis, the car is little more than a Money Eating, Road Clogging, Pollution Spewing, Resource Gobbling, "Nasty", that most people could easily do without.

One day we will eventually get a government that discovers that "Public Services" should actually "PROVIDE A SERVICE FOR THE PUBLIC", and DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE A PROFIT.

When that happens we will finally get a Public Transport Service that will be so good, that people will CHOOSE to use it instead of their cars.

There is a "Carrot & Stick" method to solving every problem. Unfortunately when it comes to Transport, our STUPID Government only seems to know about the "Stick".

They believe that if you hurt people hard enough for using their cars, that they will eventually stop using them. But as long as we have NO ALTERNATIVE, or at best an Expensive, Dirty, Slow, Unreliable Alternative, then it just isn't going to happen.

Is driving the new smoking? I would disagree as has been said, smoking is an unnecessary pleasure which has been duely taxed where are driving is a requirement in one form or another (be it business or family) as there is always journeys that public transport doesn't cover and though Id on't live in a city I do live in town (which is quite big) and suffers from this problem.

However I would love to have a chance to debate this, but so far the government has said nothing but contradictory information. On one hand they said it will track where and when we travel (which I disagree with becuase wasnt' that part of the reason for fighting the wars?) so they can charge us, then they say there will be no personel information transfered, so doesn't that mean they can't track us? (I am confused on that one)
Then they say it be a balanced intrigration off setting other taxes, but refuse to put any suggestion forward what it will off set and how much. Though I have to add they did say Fuel tax would off set and eventually do away with road tax, whcih has only gone up since.
Then they say they are interested reducing global pollution (though that was added very much as an after thought) but refuse to put any incentives on green fuels. For example I was tempted by gas power, but the insurance would have been nearly 5 times higher offsetting any saving and pricing out of my reach when you also consider the specialist services and garages it requires, also I know more freindly fuels are around but the governemnts has made now visible move to promotes these.

Fianlly, they say "in real terms" car cost less to be on the road. well in 6 years I have always driven 1.3 liter cars. I now pay double what did 6 years ago to be on the road and my gross income has only gone up by about two thirds (that includes promotions) and thats before I start deducting all the incme taxes and NI.

So, they want to make roads safer, cleaner and eaiser, well, invest in better roads and greener cars and stop putting housing estates next to dual carriage ways before slashing the speeds from 70 to 40 and finally encourage retesting (of all drivers) to make sure that people who blind, unaware and outright dangerous dont make things worse. Also, i heard speed (not speeding) was the main (or major) cause of accidents. So is the plan to make all roads 20 mph (either though restrictions or congestion)?

I live in the countryside and I use the car for most journeys (supermarkets, work etc.); I also enjoy driving a lot when the lack of other traffic permits, but something has to change. Not just in the way we guzzle fossil fuel but in the way we travel - solitary and usually in a rush.

I agree that simply making it more expensive for the motorist is unhelpful and provocative but equally, we can't just carry on as we are, ad infintum.

We need debate and solutions, not just more tax.

congestion charging, speed cameras, road taxes - yes the government is effectively at war with the motorist.
the goverment as failed to invest in a reasonable road building program taking the revenues generated by taxing the motorist and spending it on the purchase of weapons of mass destruction,furthermore with many national and local businesses rely on income from the motoring public we could see a collapes in the economy also with most supermarket and stores now relocated out town and the lack of local shop ie the post office closures, poor public transport there has never been a great need for private transport

This topic has attracted the most postings on every web-site I have accessed and it would be fair to say that the voting public is non too keen.
I watched the debate and the lady? from Transport 2000 did herself no favours in shouting down the man from the Sun and moreover wagging her finger at him, a habit that really gets my "goat".
Whenever anyone says as she did and the Labour Minister, that car travel costs have come down "in real terms" I reach for my gun! It is a euphemism for excusing more taxes.

The Lib/Dem is equally at fault when both parties are saying that the opinion of the public is of no consequence as it will go ahead.

The absence of a Tory was interesting. With Cameron heading all the polls he need do and say nothing. This will be Labour's downfall.

Such is my trust in politicians when the Tories take office they will probably do exactly the same thing. You have all been warned!

This topic has attracted the most postings on every web-site I have accessed and it would be fair to say that the voting public is non too keen.
I watched the debate and the lady? from Transport 2000 did herself no favours in shouting down the man from the Sun and moreover wagging her finger at him, a habit that really gets my "goat".
Whenever anyone says as she did and the Labour Minister, that car travel costs have come down "in real terms" I reach for my gun! It is a euphemism for excusing more taxes.

The Lib/Dem is equally at fault when both parties are saying that the opinion of the public is of no consequence as it will go ahead.

The absence of a Tory was interesting. With Cameron heading all the polls he need do and say nothing. This will be Labour's downfall.

Such is my trust in politicians when the Tories take office they will probably do exactly the same thing. You have all been warned!

The HA and TRL state that 65% of all congestion is due to the sheer volume of traffic on the roads. Unfortunately until something is done about our public transport system I'm not sure how we can improve upon this figure.

I am one of the 1.6 million who voted against charges, not because I am unwilling to pay a fair and reasonable amount to use the roads, but because with all the other taxes motorists pay this scheme, on the surface of things,seems unreasonable. I am willing to listen to reasonable arguments that say otherwise. After all, to date I have listened to the media only.

However, placing my signature to this petition should not give Mr Ladyman the right to label myself and others, as he avoids the climate change issue in the Newsnight programme, by saying 'the people behind this don't even believe climate change happens'. How dare he be so patronising and condescending.

As someone who is very environmentally aware I use a 1.2 vehicle and walk whenever possible. I will NOT, under any circumstances use public tranport - dirty, smelly, expensive,dangerous at times, totally unreliable and as a lone female I would feel extremely vulnerable. So perhaps when the government starts to address public transport issues we can all start to be greener.

If the Government are so keen to add taxes onto drivers as a fair system of pricing, why was it they only added an additional 拢40 onto road tax for 4 x 4 vehicles. It is hardly a figure that will persuade owners to purchase more environmentally friendly vehicles - 拢40 won't even provide a full tank of fuel.

We are now in 2007 - The Tranport Plan 2010 has been running for nearly 7 years. It would appear the Government has less than 3 years to 'get it right'. Isn't it about time they started to listen to their consituents.

The HA and TRL state that 65% of all congestion is due to the sheer volume of traffic on the roads. Unfortunately until something is done about our public transport system I'm not sure how we can improve upon this figure.

I am one of the 1.6 million who voted against charges, not because I am unwilling to pay a fair and reasonable amount to use the roads, but because with all the other taxes motorists pay this scheme, on the surface of things,seems unreasonable. I am willing to listen to reasonable arguments that say otherwise. After all, to date I have listened to the media only.

However, placing my signature to this petition should not give Mr Ladyman the right to label myself and others, as he avoids the climate change issue in the Newsnight programme, by saying 'the people behind this don't even believe climate change happens'. How dare he be so patronising and condescending.

As someone who is very environmentally aware I use a 1.2 vehicle and walk whenever possible. I will NOT, under any circumstances use public tranport - dirty, smelly, expensive,dangerous at times, totally unreliable and as a lone female I would feel extremely vulnerable. So perhaps when the government starts to address public transport issues we can all start to be greener.

If the Government are so keen to add taxes onto drivers as a fair system of pricing, why was it they only added an additional 拢40 onto road tax for 4 x 4 vehicles. It is hardly a figure that will persuade owners to purchase more environmentally friendly vehicles - 拢40 won't even provide a full tank of fuel.

We are now in 2007 - The Tranport Plan 2010 has been running for nearly 7 years. It would appear the Government has less than 3 years to 'get it right'. Isn't it about time they started to listen to their consituents.

The HA and TRL state that 65% of all congestion is due to the sheer volume of traffic on the roads. Unfortunately until something is done about our public transport system I'm not sure how we can improve upon this figure.

I am one of the 1.6 million who voted against charges, not because I am unwilling to pay a fair and reasonable amount to use the roads, but because with all the other taxes motorists pay this scheme, on the surface of things,seems unreasonable. I am willing to listen to reasonable arguments that say otherwise. After all, to date I have listened to the media only.

However, placing my signature to this petition should not give Mr Ladyman the right to label myself and others, as he avoids the climate change issue in the Newsnight programme, by saying 'the people behind this don't even believe climate change happens'. How dare he be so patronising and condescending.

As someone who is very environmentally aware I use a 1.2 vehicle and walk whenever possible. I will NOT, under any circumstances use public tranport - dirty, smelly, expensive,dangerous at times, totally unreliable and as a lone female I would feel extremely vulnerable. So perhaps when the government starts to address public transport issues we can all start to be greener.

If the Government are so keen to add taxes onto drivers as a fair system of pricing, why was it they only added an additional 拢40 onto road tax for 4 x 4 vehicles. It is hardly a figure that will persuade owners to purchase more environmentally friendly vehicles - 拢40 won't even provide a full tank of fuel.

We are now in 2007 - The Tranport Plan 2010 has been running for nearly 7 years. It would appear the Government has less than 3 years to 'get it right'. Isn't it about time they started to listen to their consituents.

I feel that it is thoroughly wrong to demonise the motorist when the current infrastructure of public transport is so poor.
I live in a small village, inside the M25, so no that rural! If I want to use public transport to get anywhere, i first have to get a taxi to the train station which costs me 拢9.60. Trains are late or delayed all too frequently, and on the odd occasion when they are on time, the queue at the ticket office is so long that you can miss it!
For me the car (no I don't drive a big 4x4) is an absolute necessity. Should his Tonyness want to demonise the motorist more, he really should ensure that there are other reliable, cost-effective means available otherwise this will just be another revenue raiser and fail in its primary goal of reducing traffic volume.

'Congestion' is deliberately engineered by local councils who shut off small roads and force all the traffic onto other,inadequate roads. Open up the small roads, relax the restrictions, remove the humps, and watch the problems disappear. In Norwich there is NO central free parking - just very expensive meters. there are traffic lights on roundabouts. there is a set of lights with a 3 second cycle. there is a 20mph zone 50 metres long. there are lights which allow only a single traffic channel to move, and these are at every junction.
Ther are charges for parking everywhere, and I am fed up with it all. the governement should realise that you cannot uninvent the car, or something very like it. go across the channel to France - abundant parking, free, or very cheap. No hysteria about 'congestion', and no engineered congestion either.
Perhaps WE should have a revolution to show the government who is supposed to be boss.

'Congestion' is deliberately engineered by local councils who shut off small roads and force all the traffic onto other,inadequate roads. Open up the small roads, relax the restrictions, remove the humps, and watch the problems disappear. In Norwich there is NO central free parking - just very expensive meters. there are traffic lights on roundabouts. there is a set of lights with a 3 second cycle. there is a 20mph zone 50 metres long. there are lights which allow only a single traffic channel to move, and these are at every junction.
Ther are charges for parking everywhere, and I am fed up with it all. the governement should realise that you cannot uninvent the car, or something very like it. go across the channel to France - abundant parking, free, or very cheap. No hysteria about 'congestion', and no engineered congestion either.
Perhaps WE should have a revolution to show the government who is supposed to be boss.

Rather than yet again afflicting motorists with another 'punish-the-end-user' policy, why on earth can't the government look to the obvious source of congestion - the shear number of cars being spewed onto our roads year-in-year-out by the manufacturers themselves.
Is it me, or is the analogy of 'reducing water consumption simply by turning the tap down rather than tackling the drinker' too basic a comparison?
10 years ago I wrote on the issue to a Mike Rutherford tabloid feature (without reponse), questioning the contradiction of congestion against the then introduction of bi-annual new plate-registrations, further ramping-up annual sales of cars which lets face it, these days are essentially all clones of each other.
Wouldn't a once every two-year registration, with more emphasis on quality & development over quantity; cool down the car population, promote a habit of keeping new cars for longer - reducing waste, and offer the gift of higher-technology cars? I welcome this debate.

Thanks,

Jon

Motorists would be more accepting of this new system if there was an efficient public transport scheme.

With rail fares rising, frequent rail delays and overcrowding it is such a deterrent for using public transport. Convenience is critical; with many this unreliability is unacceptable and people cannot be discouraged from using the roads whilst public transport is not meeting the nation鈥檚 standards. The main concern should be focused upon improvements to public transport before such drastic changes are made for motorists.

Singapore should not be used as a comparison as their infrastructure is already established and few people use a car, a success story for that country, however Britain mimicking segments of the strategy does not provide a sustainable future for Britain鈥檚 transport.

Over the past few years I as a motorest feel I am being penalised. I need my car to conduct my daily business becouse the public travel services available are both expencive and impractical. The tax i pay each month for the company car equates to 拢170 per month. Evetivly I am paying to do my daily work!!!!!! How can afford to pay more if road chargeing comes into force.

As to the recent complaints about speed cameras beingng used to generate money for the government. I agree if a person gets caught speeding then a fine should be paid. However I have notived over the past few years that in some areas the speed limits seem to be particullary low and cameras are postioned on them. How is on a main road in bath with no houses with a 50mph limit. How is a few miles up the road I can turn off on to a winding narrow country lane and do 60mph. May be we should pay a fine and not get points.

Right. I have some news for all the yoghurt-knitters here.

Public transport is, for the majority of the population, and outmoded and completely irrelevant form of transportation. Its unreliable, expensive, inconvenient, and isn't very good for loading 10 bags of shopping into.

Some of us enjoy driving. I do. I don't enjoy sitting in traffic jams, but then again I don't do it out of choice. I do it because I'm going somewhere, usually to earn a living.

Compare driving to smoking if you like. But remember as you do so, that the internal combustion engine is one of the single most important inventions of the last 100 years or so, and without the benefits it brings your life would be immeasureably poorer.

I've been dying for someone else (apart from me) to make the case for "passive driving" ~ all that fuss over tobacco when the fumes from cars are much more dangerous and ubiquitous.

In the inner city, what is really needed are travellators ~ big road sized travellators you can (if necessary) get cars and lorries on.

Just running at a mere 5kph would facilitate and encourage an increase in pedestrian traffic.

This would encourage circulation for everyone, the old and disabled alike. It would also add an advantage to bicycles and rollerskates or even those new giroscope vehicles.

This should be a compliment to the underground.

Out of city ~ what we need is trains that can take lorries and cars (like the one under the channel). This would allow us to travel longer distances with our beloved motorcars without burning so much petrol. We really should be pedestrainsing the motor car. We still neet our cars for the remining five percent of a train journey, because trains rarely deliver us directly to our destination.

Of course, this would all be for nothing if the electrically run travellators and trains don't get their power from renewable energy.

After reading many of the posts I notice a theme or attitude which to me seems just plain wrong.

Most people seem to think (probably due to media attitude) that the government is lining "its" pockets and getting rich in a sneaky way. This opinion is prevalent on many other issues.

In a democracy (we can debate if thats what we have forever elsewhere) government money is OUR money and the money raised in taxation is used for the benefit of OUR country.

As far as I know the salary of gordon brown (his money) is not dependant on how much money the government raises in taxation. Commentors seem to believe that this money is spent on holiday villas and champagne for MPs.

Whereas I acknowledge that MPs are probably paid too much, get too much on expenses and that also much of government money will be lost in administerial waste, never mind the infinite opinions on what the best use of govenment money is. I think that this US and THEM attitude to goverment is the real problem. There is NO trust, on either side.

The real question for us here is not should the government villify the motoring community (a ridiculous term as almost all of us benefit from the motor vehicle in some way) but rather, do we trust the government to, or belive the government should, legislate us to make decisions that we ought to be adult and responsible enough to make ourselves.

We cant have it both ways, we demand so much from government and yet take no responsibilty for anything other than our own individual needs.

I would love to live tax free and drive my car whenever and wherever I like, and have my children grow up in a safe and clean environment. Unfortunately I cannot (under any government) have all these things. Are we really blaming the current government for this.

Our democracy leaves a lot to be desired, the petition will probably bear little weight with the current PM as he has shown many times in the past that he is oblivious to ideas that he and his cronies didn't come up with. But until we face up to the fact that "we the people" bear both the responsibility and the consequenses of the personal decisions we make, then we cannot complain when the Gov has to do it for us.

As my mother always used to say, "If you act like a child then I'll treat you like a child".
The current media villification of ANY road pricing scheme reminds me of a petulant kid who wants his cake and eat it too. "Its not fair!" they say.

Well... in the words of my ever wise father "Tough son, life isnt fair, get used to it"

Unbelievable comments from some people. Any comment that starts with "since I moved to London" and then rants about using cars is a waste of everyone time - we don't all live in London. Public transport in the rest of the country is laughable, unless you want to go to London maybe.

Drivel about people who drive being inconsiderate and intolerant - ? Who is being intolerant?

Cars are NOT the new smoking. Cars are NECESSARY. Cigarettes are not. That's a fairly clear difference.

When are people going to work out that they are being manipulated by this government? Global Warming, (sorry, its not getting warmed is it, I meant Climate Change obviously) road pricing - its all excuses to bleed tax from the productive (and dare I say middle class) populace to fund this governments runaway spending and civil service job creation schemes. We are living in Animal Farm, right here, right now.

Think for yourselves and don't be led by the nose to your slaughter.

Niemoller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Your freedoms are being eroded. Your liberty is being taken. See past the spin and prtect your freedom and liberty.

Before any extra taxation comes into place there has to be better public transport.

I've just come back from a visit to Italy - there, a bus ticket cost about 80p, and lasted for 70 minutes - that means you could get on/off as many buses as you want within 70 minutes from your first journey (so you don't get penalised if there isn't a single direct bus where you want to go). Also, the buses were every 15 minutes or so, so waiting time was minimal. OK, this was in the towns we visited, not rural, but they weren't big towns..

In Italy, a 2nd class intercity train journey of 50 miles cost about 拢7 for an adult (that was the price paid on day of travel, not 3 months in advance) and nearly everyone had a seat.

For those prices it just isn't worth using a car. The UK is a totally different story, especially outside London. In the UK it's often cheaper to use a car than the train or bus, never mind the inconvenience.

Once the government get the public transport system up to the levels of other countries, THEN they can think about penalising people who drive anyway. Drivers already pay enough taxes to lead to big improvements in public transport - if the government didn't use the money for all their jollies instead.

if the goverment is so arrogant to ignore 1.6 million people i ask you what it's doing in power?
it has come to the point where it's cheaper to get a taxi into London over a car because of congestion charge. allow concessions to those who come into London on a regular basis y offering permits, this i beleive is the least that can be done.
This fits in with immigration, if we stemed the number of people coming into the country we would have less congestion and therefore less pollution.

why not just add taxes to buying an automobile?? i already pay road tax why should i pay more to use the roads!!!

not a very happy motorist!!

So you pay too much tax to use your car?

Welcome the world of the Service Engineer!

I seem (like many others) to have an inherent ability to 鈥渇ix things鈥� . As a result, I gravitated to the career of Service Engineer. BIG MISTAKE!?

In 1985 the 鈥淚ron Lady鈥� Imposed a tax on Company cars provide for 鈥淒irectors and higher payed employees鈥�. This tax was seemingly aimed at the 鈥淧erk鈥� provided for the privileged few driving the 鈥渃ompany 鈥淛ag to the station and back and was limited to those earning (As I recall) 拢7500 or more. The problem was, the limit remained the same, but wages increased鈥︹�︹��..WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT COMING!!

Today, EVERY person 鈥淕iven鈥� a vehicle to provide a service to YOU has pay a penalty for the privilege of doing the job.

You may say 鈥淔air enough鈥�, but are you happy when you photocopier breaks down? Your computer network? Your air con?

Without a company vehicle for service personnel they would have to use public transport (Carrying parts, tools etc鈥� YOU try it!)

YOUR business or YOUR job would be at risk, because either the cost of the photocopier or computer network etc would increase by a factor of 4, OR you would wait at least 7 days for an initial response to your problems and another week for the final fix. Are you prepared for this? With many customers expecting a response of 4 鈥� 6 hours, I don鈥檛 think so!

Can you afford this?

Can the country afford this?

Welcome to the real world!

Don't use your car when you don't need to, but (Mr Brown)don't penalise those of us that HAVE TO.

Many despise the car and for a long time the motor car has always been a major bogeyman of the green movement. However, let's consider what would happen if everyone would stop using their cars tommorrow. Vast sectors of economy would wiped out eg motor manufacturers, car insurance firms, garages which would result in massive job losses. With no revenue coming in from the taxes motorists pay, massive sums would be lost in taxation revenue. People who work in places which are not accessible by public transport or where public transport is not very regular would have to give up their jobs which would create further unemployment. When unemployment goes up, revenue is lost from income tax and money has to be spent on unemployment benefit. Public transport would not be able to cope with the extra demand created by the people who no longer drive their cars.

The car gives working class people the ability travel freely where they want, when they want and some people hate this idea which is why the car and motorists have been demonised so much and why we are being constantly told we should not drive or drive less. When the train was developed in the 19th century, trains were hated by some because working class were given the ability to travel. I feel aviation has been demonised for the same reason.

What a lot of nonsense this question is!!!

never mind the "new smoking" ... we haven't dealt with smoking properly yet!

We need minimum distances from all entrances to public buildings, laws to protect children from smoke in the home, laws against smoking and driving any vehicle, smoking outside where non-smokers could be present, and a total ban on the sale of tobacco.

Only when smoking has been eradicated can you suggest that it is a historic issue.

The problem is one thats been deliberately exacerbated.
If the government REALLY want to reduce emmisions and tackle congestion then WHY in every town and City in the country are town planners allowed to implement so many congestion/emmision causing traffic management schemes.
examples..
Narrowing roundabout entries by decreasing the number of entry lanes so that it causes tailbacks.
Increasing journey times by giving buses sole use of the direct roads, adding unecessary miles to everyone elses journeys. Deliberately siting bus stops on corners.
Restructuring roads to increase journey times, removing whole carridgeways and throwing white paint everywhere, making previously safe junctions/roundabouts a hazzardous nightmare.
Putting pedestrian crossing where there are already pedestrian flyovers or underpasses just to make traffic stop for no reason.
Speed bumps that increase C02 by up to 80%!
Traffic lights on roundabouts?!?! even when there is next to no traffic using them!
Road planners up and down the country deliberately prevent traffic flow in many, many places. (either that or they are complete and utter morons.. you decide)

Open your eyes. Congestion is deliberately made worse, its all part of the same scam that is C02 v Global Warming..
Its solely and purely a lame justification to inconvenience and extort money from the motorist for a theory that does not exist and for which there is NO PROOF.