Vehicle tracking

Apparently the new thing to be introduced into the UK at some point in then near future will be compulsory tracking devices in all cars, which cost the driver £200 to install, and have running costs. Which will automatically fine drivers who speed even minutely, for parking in the wrong place &c. Not of course that anyone would ever commit such minor infringements of the law.

Now, personally, I don't drive - yet. I really really don't like the idea of having my every move monitored though, we're not imbecilic children, we do have some degree of autonomy, though - not nearly so much as say... Ug the caveman.

Anyway, there is a petition to stop this, the rest I feel we've already lost...

Very probably. This country's roads are totally overwhelmed. Of course so is the train network, so I fail to see how this will help. But it will generate extra money for the government...

I don't drive. It's just ridiculously expensive, and whilst public transport is hardly brilliant in London, it is bearable.

And this is Britain. You are an imbecile until you earn several million a month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

And this is Britain. You are an imbecile until you earn several million a month.

---

David Beckham?

So, who's going to be able to clock every vehicle all of the time? Sounds like they would already have to be investigating you for this to be practical. How do they propose to prove it is the cars owner that is driving, and not someone else like a friend or family member? In the US, there is a device in the works similar to the "blackbox" in a jetliner to record speed etc... to more accurately document cause of vehicle accidents.

Not that I'm a british citizen (and that TV tax you guys pay over there simply astounds me), but the VERY SECOND they try to put some monitoring chip in my car/house/brain, is the very moment I leave the country forever.

At the very least, they shoud put the chip into the politicians who are voting for this ridiculous idea first. Perhaps they might not want the unblinking eye of "big brother" turned on themselves.

They've been talking about this for years and to be honest I don't think it'll ever really happen to the extent you're describing.
The sheer difficulties involved in forcing every vehicle owner in the UK to pay to install a system that by its very nature renders itself incredibly unpopular will make it practically impossible to enforce.
The most likely way that anything of this kind will come into effect is if it is made compulsory that all new vehicles are manufactured with some kind of "black box" in place. It will push the prices of the vehicles up, perhaps by up to about £200, but there is no way that all vehicles already in possession of private citizens can be compulsorarily fitted with these devices.
And should enough of the voting public become lethargic enough to let it slip through any referendum on it through sheer apathy then so many people will either refuse to get it fitted or remove it if it already has been then it would be an absolute nightmare to enforce.
Far cheaper to buy more cameras!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D Wilson

They've been talking about this for years and to be honest I don't think it'll ever really happen to the extent you're describing.
The sheer difficulties involved in forcing every vehicle owner in the UK to pay to install a system that by its very nature renders itself incredibly unpopular will make it practically impossible to enforce.
The most likely way that anything of this kind will come into effect is if it is made compulsory that all new vehicles are manufactured with some kind of "black box" in place. It will push the prices of the vehicles up, perhaps by up to about £200, but there is no way that all vehicles already in possession of private citizens can be compulsorarily fitted with these devices.
And should enough of the voting public become lethargic enough to let it slip through any referendum on it through sheer apathy then so many people will either refuse to get it fitted or remove it if it already has been then it would be an absolute nightmare to enforce.
Far cheaper to buy more cameras!

---

Difficulty in imposing it ? Pfffft.
"500 pounds fine if you haven't fitted your vehicle with one in x months after it's been promulgated". Cop sees you, you pay the fine. Works wonders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Difficulty in imposing it ? Pfffft.
"500 pounds fine if you haven't fitted your vehicle with one in x months after it's been promulgated". Cop sees you, you pay the fine. Works wonders.

---

Aye, and you'll need every available cop out there to be watching for it. It won't happen, there simply aren't the resources for it.

Have it as a compulsory part of getting a vehicle's MOT done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

In the US, there is a device in the works similar to the "blackbox" in a jetliner to record speed etc... to more accurately document cause of vehicle accidents.

---

And there are some significant privacy concerns over that as well in my book. :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D Wilson

Aye, and you'll need every available cop out there to be watching for it. It won't happen, there simply aren't the resources for it.

---

Sure, sure, I didn't mean that this will force _everybody_ to get it in a timely number - a lot of people will just play the numbers, and they'll be on the winning side, for quite some time.
But my feeling is that _most_ people will abide the law, and do it. Even playing the numbers, if the fine is larger than the cost of installing the gizmo, then if you're caught even once, you come out losing. But you can definitely postpone it.

And I didn't mean that all cops should actively look for it (certainly that would be impossible), but they could easily check that as well, whenever they pull you over for whatever reason. That's what I meant by playing the numbers, too. It's the same thing as giving a cursory glance to your licence plates, your lights, etc - if, for whatever reason, you get pulled over and they notice any problems with those, you suffer the consequences, even if that was not the reason to pull you over to begin with. This is just another small thing they can check _while they're at it_.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the idea, I'm just saying that they can implement it easily enough, in an efficient enough manner. Sure, it won't get 100% of folks installing it, but I would bet on a large majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Sure, sure, I didn't mean that this will force _everybody_ to get it in a timely number - a lot of people will just play the numbers, and they'll be on the winning side, for quite some time.
But my feeling is that _most_ people will abide the law, and do it. Even playing the numbers, if the fine is larger than the cost of installing the gizmo, then if you're caught even once, you come out losing. But you can definitely postpone it.

And I didn't mean that all cops should actively look for it (certainly that would be impossible), but they could easily check that as well, whenever they pull you over for whatever reason. That's what I meant by playing the numbers, too. It's the same thing as giving a cursory glance to your licence plates, your lights, etc - if, for whatever reason, you get pulled over and they notice any problems with those, you suffer the consequences, even if that was not the reason to pull you over to begin with. This is just another small thing they can check _while they're at it_.

---

I know, I know. I'm kinda getting more and more disillusioned with the way people behave the more I think about this, and I think although it'd be pretty hard to enforce beyond it being a part of a checklist on the MOT or something that cops glance at if you get pulled over, I just can't help thinking that pretty much everyone pays the TV licence, and 300% more council tax than they should, which is frankly a joke, so sadly I can't see this being any different, if it ever gets in. Hopefully the only way it will is through a nationwide vote on it, and if enough people can haul themselves off their sofas to stop it, we'll be ok. But I just wish I could count on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Difficulty in imposing it ? Pfffft.
"500 pounds fine if you haven't fitted your vehicle with one in x months after it's been promulgated". Cop sees you, you pay the fine. Works wonders.

---

There are over one million drivers on the UK road that don't pay their road tax, and a million or more than don't have insurance - probably the same lot. These people tend not to go for the MOT on their death-trap. The police have not made a dent in this number, indeed it goes up and up as insurance gets more expensive (which happens because of all the costs lumped onto legal drivers' bills). When they do get caught, the fine is usually less than they have saved in the preceding years.

Let's not even take into account the UK government's record on databases. They can't even find who was in prison or whether a paedophile convicted abroad is working with children - so I doubt if they can run a tracking scheme for twenty million motorists.

Like ID cards, this is an unworkable dream for a Home Secretary that would like you all locked up just in case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

There are over one million drivers on the UK road that don't pay their road tax, and a million or more than don't have insurance - probably the same lot. These people tend not to go for the MOT on their death-trap. The police have not made a dent in this number, indeed it goes up and up as insurance gets more expensive (which happens because of all the costs lumped onto legal drivers' bills). When they do get caught, the fine is usually less than they have saved in the preceding years.

Let's not even take into account the UK government's record on databases. They can't even find who was in prison or whether a paedophile convicted abroad is working with children - so I doubt if they can run a tracking scheme for twenty million motorists.

---

Yes the saving grace for those of us not in favour of this is that with things like this it is rarely ever enforced, and even if you do get caught I suspect the most that'll happen is a slap on the wrist. You also get the problem that the most likely people to be enforcing and issuing fines will be local government authorities, and seeing as they are singularly incapable of working with anyone else, it's all still an administrative nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

David Beckham?

---

He's getting $250m for 5 years of kicking a football about in LA.

Not an imbecile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

He's getting $250m for 5 years of kicking a football about in LA.

Not an imbecile.

---

Fair point. Still, speaks like one though...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Maybe I'm just envious...

BG: 1M out of 20M motorists ? That's only 5%, I'd say that's a pretty good number! (i.e., "small").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

When they do get caught, the fine is usually less than they have saved in the preceding years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D Wilson

Yes the saving grace for those of us not in favour of this is that with things like this it is rarely ever enforced, and even if you do get caught I suspect the most that'll happen is a slap on the wrist.

---

Then, playing the devil's advocate here (because I don't in agree with this measure), may I point out that the "flaw" resides in the gov't not instituting higher fines for this ? ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

[Then, playing the devil's advocate here (because I don't in agree with this measure), may I point out that the "flaw" resides in the gov't not instituting higher fines for this ? ~D

---

Fair point. The issue then becomes one of capacity. Since a substantial part of those that don't pay their road taxes tend to be on low incomes, they are also then unable to pay the bigger fines.

Inability to pay fines leads to imprisonment in the UK. The prisons are already full. Even if they added just another 30,000 road tax dodgers to the system as a clamp-down, the country would be awash with criminals being housed in chicken huts.

For example, a substantial proportion of women imprisoned in the UK are actually there for being unable to pay their TV licence (a kind of tax on viewing TV) and the fines accruing. Criminal record, family breakdown, delinquent children, ensnarement in drug addiction - not to mention the cost to the taxpayer of housing them - all the fruits of being too poor to pay for the TV.

~:eek: You go to jail for not paying your TV licence tax ?!
I know little about the social situation in the UK, so then my question becomes: how on earth people who own cars, who can afford to maintain them (*), buy gas (or petrol, if you prefer~D ), cannot afford to pay whatever road tax ?

Also, while I fully believe you that prisons are full and represent a huge burden on the taxpayer, it's a bit hard to accept the argument that a new tax won't be put in place simply because we can't harbor more criminals in our jails. You see what I mean, don't you ? I mean, following that train of thought, people would feel free to do any crime after some point, because the jails are full and the system just can't take any more criminals and put them in jail.
I find it hard to swallow that can happen in a civilized country like the UK...

Can you explain a bit more, please ? I'm finding myself unable to tie all these loose ends...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...av-reliant.jpg

I wonder if he pays his road tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

~:eek: You go to jail for not paying your TV licence tax ?!

---

No, you go to jail for not paying the fine imposed on you for not paying your TV licence. (i.e. You cannot pay the £150 tax, so here's a fine of £1,000 on top. Oh, you can't pay that either, Go to Jail) :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

I know little about the social situation in the UK, so then my question becomes: how on earth people who own cars, who can afford to maintain them (*), buy gas (or petrol, if you prefer~D ), cannot afford to pay whatever road tax ?

---

Well, it's the same in most countries. One can pick up a jalopy for as little as £100 (around 200 US dollars) and drive it perfectly well. Maintenance is an option for these people, but if they want to, they are often capable of doing much of it themselves or having a mate who does for a beer. Road tax is something of the order of £175 per year and insurance, especially for young men under 25 can be as high as £1000 for even an ordinary car. These last two are seen as optional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Also, while I fully believe you that prisons are full and represent a huge burden on the taxpayer, it's a bit hard to accept the argument that a new tax won't be put in place simply because we can't harbor more criminals in our jails. You see what I mean, don't you ? I mean, following that train of thought, people would feel free to do any crime after some point, because the jails are full and the system just can't take any more criminals and put them in jail.
I find it hard to swallow that can happen in a civilized country like the UK...

Can you explain a bit more, please ? I'm finding myself unable to tie all these loose ends...

---

The issue is not "the jails are full, avoid making new criminals" but what offences create criminals that deserve jail. Imprisonment is a fantastically expensive method of creating new and better criminals. Without dragging this off down another prison debate, I think imprisoning people for their inability to pay fines is fat-headed, and stringent but non-custodial methods such as community service would be better.

Full prisons are the result of politicians taking the easy sound-bite to punish crime. The upshot is that really dangerous criminals (rapists, murderers etc) are now being shuffled around into open prisons (low security establishments with a high absconding rate) or even cleverer, housed in police cells being guarded by policemen who might be better off out catching villains. ~:rolleyes:

My point for the thread is that this tracking database, even if it worked, is another sound-bite.

In the case of TV licences, it seems to me far more cost effective to exempt people on low incomes from paying the tax - or to remove the flat-rate tax (the rich pay the same rate as the poor) altogether and fund the BBC differently.

I hope the finingmachine we call the police won't be inspired by this, they would love to milk us dry without having to move. Pretty 1985 this is for sure.

I thought we all got rid of debtors prisons back in the 1800's. This sounds like a throw-back.

A lot of the taxes and fees we pay here are attched to tangible objects; the $10k auto you buy includes various and sundry taxes and fees, so you're paying up-front for usage. Then fuel is taxed (up to around 30% in some places) to cover road maintenance. Don't want to pay the tax? Don't buy a car, or drive one.

Not a perfect solution, since "the man" still gets your money, but tieing it to a tangible, voluntarily-purchased item sounds more easily enforceable than simply being handed another piece of paper saying "tax due; pay up or go to jail".

hmmm, mkay. Thank you for the explanation, BG.
Agree with the fact that community service would be more practical (and profitable) than jailing people for such stupid things as fines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Well, it's the same in most countries. One can pick up a jalopy for as little as £100 (around 200 US dollars) and drive it perfectly well. Maintenance is an option for these people, but if they want to, they are often capable of doing much of it themselves or having a mate who does for a beer. Road tax is something of the order of £175 per year and insurance, especially for young men under 25 can be as high as £1000 for even an ordinary car. These last two are seen as optional.

---

Well, I dunno, in that case they could just confiscate the car when they catch them - rather than sending them to jail. That might (might!) prevent some people from getting one if they can't pay the associated fees.
Sure, the issue becomes more complex, in that now you're depriving them of the car which may be essential for them to get to work or whatever, but is depriving them of their car worse than depriving them of freedom ? :inquisitive:

Hmm. Go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

No offense... but how can you guys stand your country. It seems like a police/nanny state the way you describe it.... and getting worse every year it sounds, with the cctv and all.

BTW while we are on the subject I have a question...is it true that if you are being attacked the gov. advises (in the UK) that if you are being attacked only yell "call the police" instead of "help" because only professionals should get involved.:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

No offense... but how can you guys stand your country. It seems like a police/nanny state the way you describe it.... and getting worse every year it sounds, with the cctv and all.

BTW while we are on the subject I have a question...is it true that if you are being attacked the gov. advises (in the UK) that if you are being attacked only yell "call the police" instead of "help" because only professionals should get involved.:wall:

---

I've just listened to Genesis' album: 'Selling England by the Pound'. It's worrying considering this.

I hate my country.:thumbsdown:

I want an empire! :balloon2:

If this is any worse by the time I'm out of university, I'm learning the appropriate languages and moving to Belgium or Italy.

Quote:

---

All the fruits of being too poor to pay for the TV.

---

Well, you aren't legally obliged to own a TV. I can't afford a TV licence, so I don't have a TV. Therefore, I don't get slapped with a big fine I can't pay, and therefore, I don't go to prison. It's pretty simple.

You can argue about the merits of prison for non-payment of fines, but in this particular matter you do have a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orb

I hate my country.:thumbsdown:

I want an empire! :balloon2:

---

:inquisitive:

You want to foist the country you hate on everyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Well, you aren't legally obliged to own a TV. I can't afford a TV licence, so I don't have a TV. Therefore, I don't get slapped with a big fine I can't pay, and therefore, I don't go to prison. It's pretty simple.

You can argue about the merits of prison for non-payment of fines, but in this particular matter you do have a choice.

---

It's a fair point, but TV is considered these days a fairly basic provision. You don't have to have a home either.

I'm a fan of public service broadcasting, but I just don't see how its fair that a student or minimum wage worker has to pay the same rate as Sir Richard Branson for the licence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It's a fair point, but TV is considered these days a fairly basic provision. You don't have to have a home either.

I'm a fan of public service broadcasting, but I just don't see how its fair that a student or minimum wage worker has to pay the same rate as Sir Richard Branson for the licence.

---

So, we should pay income-dependent rates for the same services? Should I perhaps be paying more for the goods I buy, purely because I can? If so, then what's the point in earning any money? Branson doesn't get better tv just because he's a millionaire - he gets exactly the same as everyone else, for the same price. Oh, and he probably doesn't use it so much as the average council peon either, because he actually does some work once in a while, instead of numbing his mind in front of the tripe that gets piped into living rooms throughout the country.

*addendum*

Bread, a fairly basic provision. Granted, you can pay more for 'better' bread if you so wish. But are you suggesting I should pay more for the same loaf just so some loafer who doesn't have so much money can pay less? That smacks of communism that does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

So, we should pay income-dependent rates for the same services? Should I perhaps be paying more for the goods I buy, purely because I can? If so, then what's the point in earning any money? Branson doesn't get better tv just because he's a millionaire - he gets exactly the same as everyone else, for the same price. Oh, and he probably doesn't use it so much as the average council peon either, because he actually does some work once in a while, instead of numbing his mind in front of the tripe that gets piped into living rooms throughout the country.

*addendum*

Bread, a fairly basic provision. Granted, you can pay more for 'better' bread if you so wish. But are you suggesting I should pay more for the same loaf just so some loafer who doesn't have so much money can pay less? That smacks of communism that does.

---

Well, to begin with I don't agree with your apparent premise that all people on low incomes are loafers. I happen to earn a very decent living and inherited a great deal of my wealth - though I also built some through business - I would be ashamed to claim that I worked as hard as say, a labourer on a building site, or a nurse. The world is thus, and my "labour" per hour is valued more by society, but that does not mean society isn't rather perverse. :beam:

Second, we are talking about a tax here. The tax is levied to fund the BBC. There are plenty of commercial channels that pay for themselves, and could be provided free through utilising advertising - yet one has no choice but to pay for the BBC.

In taxation terms, your argument is flawed. Fair taxes are best graduated to ability to pay, not flat-rate. Of course, the best solution would be to abolish the TV tax altogether and let the market provide.

Am I sounding sufficiently communist now? :bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Well, to begin with I don't agree with your apparent premise that all people on low incomes are loafers. I happen to earn a very decent living and inherited a great deal of my wealth - though I also built some through business - I would be ashamed to claim that I worked as hard as say, a labourer on a building site, or a nurse. The world is thus, and my "labour" per hour is valued more by society, but that does not mean society isn't rather perverse. :beam:

Second, we are talking about a tax here. The tax is levied to fund the BBC. There are plenty of commercial channels that pay for themselves, and could be provided free through utilising advertising - yet one has no choice but to pay for the BBC.

In taxation terms, your argument is flawed. Fair taxes are best graduated to ability to pay, not flat-rate. Of course, the best solution would be to abolish the TV tax altogether and let the market provide.

Am I sounding sufficiently communist now? :bounce:

---

I suppose the crucial difference is whether we see having a tv as a necessity, or a luxury. If it were a necessity, which I don't believe is so then yes - it would be a tax, and therefore should be income dependent. If it's a luxury, as I do believe, then it is someone's choice to pay for the BBC. If they didn't want to pay, they don't have to watch tv. Simple.

As for the question of loafers... they're very comfortable on the feet.

Otherwise though, what's the minimum wage in this country? 5.35 an hour or something. With an average of 40 hours a week, that makes 214 pounds a week; over 800 pounds a month. Now, personally, my lifestyle isn't particularly thrifty, but including my rent and a fair quantity of frivolous pursuits (which I have plenty of time for, being a loafing student), I'd be hard pressed to spend that much a month. Ergo, if someone is somehow incapable of supporting themselves, they must have done something foolish.

If you're saying there aren't enough jobs available for people, there's always the army - we have a recruitment crisis at the moment, according to the papers. And in the army there's free food and board, travel oppurtunities too. Bonus!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

I suppose the crucial difference is whether we see having a tv as a necessity, or a luxury. If it were a necessity, which I don't believe is so then yes - it would be a tax, and therefore should be income dependent. If it's a luxury, as I do believe, then it is someone's choice to pay for the BBC. If they didn't want to pay, they don't have to watch tv. Simple.

---

Yes, life is extremely simple. (So you believe that even if someone wishes to watch TV, but doesn't want to watch the BBC, they should nonetheless pay for it, for the greater good?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

Otherwise though, what's the minimum wage in this country? 5.35 an hour or something. With an average of 40 hours a week, that makes 214 pounds a week; over 800 pounds a month. Now, personally, my lifestyle isn't particularly thrifty, but including my rent and a fair quantity of frivolous pursuits (which I have plenty of time for, being a loafing student), I'd be hard pressed to spend that much a month. Ergo, if someone is somehow incapable of supporting themselves, they must have done something foolish.

---

Try bringing up a family. Ah but of course, life is simple, I forgot. One should not be so disparaging of working people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

If you're saying there aren't enough jobs available for people, there's always the army - we have a recruitment crisis at the moment, according to the papers. And in the army there's free food and board, travel oppurtunities too. Bonus!

---

There are plenty of jobs in the UK, but your educational system turns out rather too many people who are unable to read and write.

In my day, the British Army tended to recruit good quality soldiers rather than anyone off the streets. I wouldn't disagree that a form of national service (not affecting the professional armed forces but as a form of education) would solve some problems - but that is another thread entirely. :beam:

I am however, confused. You note in this post that you are a "loafing student" yet in other posts and later in this one, you seem to identify with being a soldier. May I ask which it is? (None of my business of course, so feel free to ignore. Just curious).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Yes, life is extremely simple. (So you believe that even if someone wishes to watch TV, but doesn't want to watch the BBC, they should nonetheless pay for it, for the greater good?)

---

TV's all much the same, isn't it? And one can have a TV without paying for a license, just so long as you can prove that you don't actually watch the stuff that's piped at you. Can't say I know every little detail about it - television doesn't interest me all that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Try bringing up a family. Ah but of course, life is simple, I forgot. One should not be so disparaging of working people.

---

I personally would never consider trying to bring up a family unless I felt my self able to sustain one. Brining a child into a disadvantaged world is somewhat irresponsible, especially in a country where there's free 'family planning' available. And I'm not being disparaging of working people, I'm being disparaging of people who aren't working enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

There are plenty of jobs in the UK, but your educational system turns out rather too many people who are unable to read and write.

---

True enough, saw something written by someone the other day - from the writing, I would have guessed 4 or 5 years old. Actually 13. This is something I definitely don't approve of, though - not all teaching is the responsibility of the schools - I learned a lot of my 'letters' at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

In my day, the British Army tended to recruit good quality soldiers rather than anyone off the streets. I wouldn't disagree that a form of national service (not affecting the professional armed forces but as a form of education) would solve some problems - but that is another thread entirely. :beam:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Arthur Wellesley

Ours is composed of the scum of the earth

---

I do agree about national service, would be a rather good thing to have. (But take the guns back off them at the end - we aren't quite so sensible as the Swiss)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I am however, confused. You note in this post that you are a "loafing student" yet in other posts and later in this one, you seem to identify with being a soldier. May I ask which it is? (None of my business of course, so feel free to ignore. Just curious).

---

Ah... Student, and sort of member of the TA. Also planning on commissioning (If I get through all the hoops)