Thread: UK: Road petition ignored

2.8% of the British Public signed an online petition against the new road tax. Now this petition wasn't advertised anywhere but still just over 1,700,000 people signed the petition. One wonder what one must do in this country to get opposition to an idea heard.

Still blair refuses to stop and think,

Sky News: Blair Won't Give Way

Blair Won't Give Way

Updated: 09:25, Wednesday February 21, 2007

The Prime Minister is refusing to back down over road charging in his email response to nearly 1.8 million people who signed a petition against the idea.
The petition, on the 10 Downing Street website, closed at midnight with 1,792,168 signatures.
Mr Blair's response will be posted in full on the No 10 website later.
But his official spokesman says he will make it clear he intends to press ahead with 10 pilot schemes to trial the anti-congestion technology.

Advertisement


The petition calls on the Government to "scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy".
Mr Blair will say that with traffic on Britain's roads due to increase by 40% by 2025, something must be done to prevent gridlock.
No 10 says the Prime Minister will stress that no decision has yet been made, and that the petition and his email are "the beginning, not the end" of the debate.
Brian Gregory, chairman of the Association of British Drivers, said: "This petition will have succeeded only if it causes the Government to stop and think, makes them understand that this is a vote-loser and dump it, or at least call a referendum of everyone in the country on road-pricing."

Having been one of the people who signed the petition i also recieved the email from tony blair. This didn't in any way satisfy me.

"Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair"

This petition made the anti-war demos in London in 2003 look quiet! And yet, nothing from our Dear Leader Blair. Deep down, he's probably enjoying the fact that his actions are threatening to derail Gordon Brown's hopes of becoming Prime Minister, or at least staying at 10 Downing St for any length of time.

Originally Posted by Juche

This petition made the anti-war demos in London in 2003 look quiet! And yet, nothing from our Dear Leader Blair. Deep down, he's probably enjoying the fact that his actions are threatening to derail Gordon Brown's hopes of becoming Prime Minister, or at least staying at 10 Downing St for any length of time.

lol probably, well gordon brown won't be feeling any more smug because he is infact more likely to lose the party votes when coming into power rather than gain them. Opinon polls suggest the labour party will lose 2% of their vote in the event of brown coming to power.

Still it irks me that yet again so many people are being ignored. That email was in my opinon fairly patronising. Im tierd of this governments belief that it can simply tax congestion away.

Originally Posted by Roach

That email was in my opinon fairly patronising.

I found it extremely patronising, much to the point that I could only read around half of it. Motorists are being screwed, and there's no point in dressing it up. Tony was right about one thing though...there is still room for discussion. And I'll be seeking out a new petition on the subject, and signing it.

And here it is....please sign.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Scrap the idea of "road pricing".

Originally Posted by Juche

And here it is....please sign.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Scrap the idea of "road pricing".

lol, already done. Patronising bastard that tony blair is! I hope this gets more sigs this time around

Originally Posted by Roach

lol, already done. Patronising bastard that tony blair is! I hope this gets more sigs this time around

The way my signature's going, I can't see that happening. The confirmation email required to get your signature on still hasn't arrived in my inbox. I think Tony's taking precautions.

Originally Posted by Juche

I found it extremely patronising, much to the point that I could only read around half of it. Motorists are being screwed, and there's no point in dressing it up. Tony was right about one thing though...there is still room for discussion. And I'll be seeking out a new petition on the subject, and signing it.

Oh good, it wasn't just me then, my eyes started glazing over about the third or fourth paragraph.

I agree Juche, my sentiments exactly - we can't keep agreeing like this, we need to debate.

Originally Posted by Juche

The way my signature's going, I can't see that happening. The confirmation email required to get your signature on still hasn't arrived in my inbox. I think Tony's taking precautions.

Im suffering exactly the same problem.... hmm suspicious