A lot of people have no choice, or choose not to drive. The option has to be open.
Printable View
A lot of people have no choice, or choose not to drive. The option has to be open.
Where does all the money from congestion charging go? Would it be plausible for a free bus service in towns that was paid for by a congestion charge? Or would the funding for the buses dry up as more people stopped driving into towns when they could use a bus for free?
In London, it goes back into various transport-related projects, including bus services. I certainly noticed an improvement in bus provision soon after the CC was enforced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
The question as to whether congestion charging could be counter-productive as a result of it being so successful that the revenue derived from it is too small to bother with is an interesting one. Any scheme would have to be really successful to reach that point, but it could happen.
I said there should be more referendums (in another thread), but was told it wasn't a great idea. I imagine they would have to raise the tax in order to put such a system in place...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Whether it's a good idea or not I would think depends on how honestly you present the issue and the manner of presentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
In Texas there are many tax issues that are decided by popular vote, among them being city sales taxes and property (real estate) taxes. Local school districts are funded by property taxes. Property tax increases are almost always passed the first time although every now and then an increase will fail until the school board does a better job of explaining the need for the increase.
Contrary to the professional politician's view, not all taxes and fees will be shot down all the time just because they are taxes. We don't want our money wasted on nonsense. Isn't London having some difficulty with the Olympic funding and cost overruns? Believe it or not, I've been known to vote for tax increases myself. I resent however, being used as governments personal ATM machine.
I wouldn't fund rural public transport. Thats part of the breaks of living in the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I, on the other hand, do not feel hard done by at any time by taxation. Of course it would be nice to pay no tax, or less, but I am happy knowing that while some of my money (a very small amount in real terms) goes towards things I disagree with and may be wasted, some of it also goes towards valuable things that I'm pleased to contribute to. It's an imperfect system, but I don't think it can ever be modified to suit everybody and choose to accept this. I am less acceptant of many other things, but the current method of taxation, I can tolerate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Well, I disagree fundamentally with you, but there you go. Neither of us is going to agree with the other on this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
I do not think taxation is automatically a bad thing. Taxation is a necessary thing. I think allowing government to tax and fee as they see fit without specific public approval is automatically a bad thing. I do not believe governments job is to try to make things artificially equal for everybody all the way around the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I believe that holding a referendum on every single item of taxation, of which there have to be many, would be unnecessarily cumbersome and expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
By the way, apologies if I misrepresented your general view on taxation.
Spoken like a true Texan. Thats why Houston has never been able to get a sales tax increase to fund a public light rail choo-choo to go from one end to the other. Nobody wants to ride the thing. This late in the game, I'm not sure, but even their Metro Bus public transportation system used to lose money all the time. Maybe it pays for itself now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
No apology necessary, it is easy to get that opinion of me. I don't believe planning ahead, getting your ducks in a row, and going to the people twice a year with tax proposals would be unworkable or extremely expensive. In fact, I would dare to say if handled honestly it would increase peoples respect for their elected officials. I want to know my money, that I worked damned hard for, is being used prudently and not being thrown away on some feel-good program that is really designed to garner votes to keep the official in office. You may not believe it, but I'm really a very charitable guy and probably donate more money willingly than I'd be willing to allow the government to take. Of course, I get to pick and choose where my money goes. As a general rule, not very much of it goes to people that REPEATEDLY make poor life style choices while expecting me to pick up the tab for their care and feeding. I have no pity for them. I have no problem with those who have been dealt a bad hand and are struggling to fight their way back. I applaud those people and will help them as I can. I don't care if thats "fair" or not. Some people regularly demonstrate by their actions that they have more value than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
This is the great difference between our countries. Many rural British areas were built hundreds of years ago before industrialisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Ok, fair enough. How much are you, personally, willing to contribute to a rural transportation system? How long are you willing to contribute? Bear in mind the system isn't likely to ever pay for itself, much less turn a profit. If it could, a private company would already be doing it. Would you rather have buses in the country or better schools and/or medical care? What will your feelings be in 5 years when the numbers show that many city dwellers have moved to the country to get away from the crime, grime, noise, higher city taxes, and congestion of the city and best of all, thanks to the rural bus system you are funding for them. actually commute to their jobs in the city cheaper than they could when they lived in the city?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
I have a problem with forcing a rural transportation on the taxpayers against their will. Package your proposal honestly, don't sugarcoat it by claiming it will pay for itself, tell them what they can expect to pay for it on an individual basis and let them vote on it. You may sell it, but I think most Britons would rubbish it also.
That's the very reason why rural brach lines were closed in the 1960's. Indeed it was said that it would be cheaper to pay for individual taxi's for each of the people rather than run trains.
Buses are another solution, but again, they cost a lot to run so they need a good amount of passengers on them.
All public transport needs a certain number of people going from the same place to the same place at the same time for it to be effective, and in rural areas those numbers often just aren't there. The solution to the problem, strangely enough, is private transport, i.e. cars :p
Yeah its quicker, but is your car seriously cheaper once you've put petrol in it, tax it and insured it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
I didn't say that it was cheaper than driving, but it is expensive for what you are paying for when you travel by bus. I'd pay more for the privilege of driving a car as it provides a far better service than the buses do.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
Maybe not, but he can listen to whatever music he wants, drink his coffee, nibble a sandwhich, sing, fart, decide to make an unscheduled stop on the way home, I guess smoke if he wants, not have to listen to 16 cell phone conversations than don't concern him, or pretend to tolerate the bad and boorish behaviour of the ill-mannered that he may find himself sitting next to on the bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
It's not always about cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
As Drew said, Britain is far different from America. Rural areas over here probably aren't as 'rural' as places in America ;) I'm considered to live in a rural area but I'm still only 10 miles away from 3 large towns (Preston, Lancaster & Blackpool) yet the bus service is a complete joke. Surely there are people who want to go from town to town and to do that they have to go through the countryside. An improvement in bus services would benefit all.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Would it? You've already said you wouldn't use buses again now you drive (belated congratulations, by the way) so do you really want to pay for others to not bother using buses too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
I'm fairly rural here and the locals in one village had petitions and what have you to improve the bus service. A local company supplies the bus, arrives about five or six times a day and how many people use it do you think? Well, when it passes my land it's generally empty :mark:
The school children are on the old service that already existed, so that is used heavily, but all the rest are empty more often than not. The most on it would be three or four adults going to meet their children or grandchildren from school. It's pointless. And the local bus company that runs it had the foresight to sign for a five year contract, so they get paid anyway and it can't be dropped from service :mark:
Rural bus transport — indeed, almost all bus transport — was privatised in the UK long ago, in 1986.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
In any case, our experiences of privately-run as opposed to publically-run public transport in the UK have shown that there is mostly little advantage to privatisation other than keeping the running of the system off the balance sheet, and that in terms of standards of service in the transport business, the public sector has little or nothing to learn from the private sector. Rather, in the UK, the public sector has much to learn from the well-run public sector transport systems that we all find in other countries when we go to mainland Europe.
Neither is it always about whether a service can turn a profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
This was proved to be way off the mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
In addition, the cuts made by Beeching in the 1960s failed to take into account the social value of the railway network. I say again that running a transport system cannot all come down to whether each bit makes a profit Our trouble in the UK is that successive governments have not taken a sufficiently long-term approach to addressing the needs of the transport network. This was the case before the Second World War, it was the case in the 1960s and it is the case now.
You only have to travel to many mainland European countries to see the difference. In Germany, for example, the rail network is a genuinely viable alternative to road transport, and not just because the distances cross-country are larger than in the UK. It is because there has been planned investment over the years, a longer-term attitude to the development of the network, and no botched privatisation carried out for the wrong reason (in the UK's case, because John Major looked at the competition between train companies of the inter-war years through rose-tinted spectacles and thought he could re-create it — in fact, this was deeply misguided, as the competition was completely unsustainable.)
Which can then create a whole set of new problems. Again, it's part of looking at transport 'in the round' and coming up with policies that reflect this, rather than treating each bit separately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
If buses where cheaper and provided a higher quality, more frequent service then I might consider using them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
I already said that about buses, subsidies wouldn't last forever. The process that you're talking about has already happened in the UK and quite a long time ago as well. It happened with the popularity of the motorcar. Also I doubt that if they moved to the country, they would not use a slow bus service, rather their merc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
There are a few "park and rides" in my nearest city. It's a pretty cheap bus ride (in comparison) and the parking is free (not common in the UK) but of course you have to drive all the way there anyhow.
Age doesnt drive, skill does. My friend started driving around the city at 13 and has never had any accidents. Thats because he knows how to drive. Some people somehow get the license, but even after many years of driving they arent very good at it. This goes especially for women and that isnt sexism, that is realism.
Driving Tests should be made much harder to pass and people who fail once, shouldnt get the chance to try again for quite a long time. I know some people have tried around 7-8 times before finally passing (this was in summertime, what would happen if it was an icy road?), why should a person like this get a license?
That the biggest load of crap that I have read in my 18 year career of being a person :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Hidden among the rubbish, there's one very good point. The test should be harder, a lot harder in some areas. I know a couple of people who've passed and they're frankly lacking all common sense behind a wheel. Observation and parking ability, they have none :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
As for women being generally worse drivers, being man means you never, ever get to say that. It's like somebody saying your baby is ugly or telling you you're fat - it just isn't done. Women are allowed to say women are worse drivers, men are not. Women are worse drivers, mind :p :
Does anyone remember taking the pee out of me a year or two ago when I said pretty soon the biggest killer of late teen to mid twenties girls will be male drivers of the same age range? I believe a certain pretentious forumer said he'd never read such drivel. Looking forward to his U turn as today the authorities that compile the stats said the biggest UK killer for the younger lady is in fact the younger male driver.
Don't say I didn't tell you so ;)
Lack of common sense isn't just lacking from driving though. It is a much larger social problem. With all of the health and safety/nanny state culture we have today people don't have to use common sense because they are protected from any potential danger. So when the time comes for common sense to be applied, they don't have the ability to apply any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
I don't know how to make the driving test harder. I'd vote for having to do all 4 maneuvers on the test. I know people who have passed and they can only do two of them, and those were the two that they got on their test.
I don't think that the ubiquitous health and safety/nanny state argument really applies in this case, because bad driving by young people really started to become a bigger problem before many would suggest that this culture (if it exists) developed to its current extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Your second paragraph rather hits the nail on the head. People often say that the driving test should be made harder, and probably rightly so, but how? To do so would probably involve a huge amount of bureaucracy, and a massive number of additional driving instructors, to name but two potential problems. Some sort of psychometric testing is another idea, but I bet a lot of people would object to it, and probably with good grounds. Again, the sheer number of people being tested would require a lot of resources. What's more, giving people motorway lessons, as is often suggested, would be rather hard to achieve in many areas where people live far from the nearest motorway. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, merely pointing out a practical problem.
raising the age to 18 seems like a great idea to me.
It should also be mandatory for new license holders to display 'P' plates on there vehicle for a year, in addition a 0% alcohol limit should be introduced.
What difference would that make? Apart from other drivers taking advantage new drivers. Will it make the car heavier and slow it down?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuartf12007
"I'll cut in front of him because he's a new driver", "it doesn't matter if I crash into him because I'll blame him as he's a new driver"
The whole point of the 'P' plate is for people who have passed their test and are worried about stalling at traffic lights and holding others up. If you see they have a 'P' plate your less likely to show aggression towards them.
Experience is a bigger factor than age. If the driving age is raised to 18, there will probably be just as many accidents since the 18 year olds would be just as experienced as the 16 year olds right now. In the U.S. teens need to spend 30 hrs in a class room, 12 hrs taking driving lessons, and some more time practicing with their parents. It would be a good idea to increase the number of hours driving on the road, even if at the expense of the class room lessons. It's easier said than done since more driving hours either means higher prices for lessons or an increase in taxes, so it is something that really needs to be thought out.
Making the road test tougher is a good idea, but it should still be easy enough that the majority of the people who take it will pass.
http://img.drive.com.au/drive_images...pPlate_m_m.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
In practice it makes bugger all difference but does let you know on the motorway that they are restricted to slower speeds.
It's mandatory to display P Plates for 3 years in NSW. For the first year, drivers are restricted to 90km/h and then for two years to 100km/h (the highest posted motorway speeds are 110km/h)
Anywhere where the speed is less and from a practical standpoint there's really no difference at all. If everyone is doing 60km/h down the same stretch of road then it's almost a non-event.
I don't see the point in speed restrictions, as doing 60mph over Hardknott pass is going to certainly get you killed, while doing 60mph on the M1 is about as safe as you can get while driving.
There does seem to be an increasing nanny stateism, and drivers expecting to be told what to do, rather than using common sense. e.g. The road from Keswick to Honister has a 40mph limit, where other roads elsewhere would be NSL (60mph), now 40mph is about as fast as any sensible driver will be going on that road anyway, so we shouldn't need speed limits to tell us that.
The trouble is that a fair number of drivers probably do need to be told what to do. It's all very well then saying that the test needs to be harder, but in what ways? No-one seems to be able to answer that in a way that is practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
There is no doubt, though, that road planners and highways departments now assume most drivers to be stupid. You only have to look at some of the absurd junction designs, changes to the simple roundabout and the proliferation of pointless road markings and signage to see this. Yet whenever extra signage really is needed, it often never seems to be erected!
I wouldn't expect a harder driving test to reduce young road deaths. Most road deaths involving young people happen at night with drugs and alcohol as contributing factors. There is never just one person involved in these accidents, it is usually a group of 8 people squished into a Corsa and the driver tries to show off to them, by taking a corner at 80mph whilst steering with his feet or something.
I think the American idea of classroom tuition is a good one, and not just on subjects such as braking distances and hazard awareness. But also covering wider topics such as map reading, route planning, knowing what the different signs mean (not just the warning triangles).
How to make the test harder?
That's easy enough, if you think about it. Introduce a trainer's 'score card' system where the lessons a new driver has taken are listed and any little niggles the instrucor had are noted. Make it legally binding, of course, like the schools exam system, so instructors aren't liable to cheat.
Doesn't take any more test people at all, doesn't cost much to introduce, plus it makes sure the learner has had some form of trained instruction (I suggest a minimum of six or ten hours) rather than had their mum teach them her bad habbits the week before they're tested. Anyone who really wants to drive will pay for six or ten lessons. The only real cost to the authorities would be some mystery shoppers (people who test the instructors without them knowing) to make sure offering bribes and so on isn't common.
Adding to the written test would also help. I didn't have to do it, but did some pretend ones with a friend who was taking her test. It was too easy - I passed without any revision at all. That's not good enough, I should have had to think hard and have forgotten some of it - but instead worked out the answers far too quickly. Didn't feel tested at all :mark: