"Steve Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree, overwhelmingly, with the majority of what you say. And like you, I >do have a problem with vehicle tracking. Part of me is attracted to the >idea, for in the same way the internet provides about the closest we can get >to a pure economic model, so vehicle tracking would provide the best basis >on which road charging might be applied. The London congestion charge, much >as I support it, is too blunt an instrument. Vehicle tracking would allow a >much more subtle intervention with charging accurately related to real >congestion. > >But the civil liberties argument is a killer, I agree. > >I don't know how to square this circle. What I will refer to as "the Cambridge approach" (it was thought of there, but sadly not yet implemented) does it. I posted something about it recently. It consists of a (sealed) black box in each vehicle, attached to a swipe-card reader in the cab. You add units to your on-board account from your (pre-paid) swipe card. If you car drops below an average specified speed (10 mph?) for more than a specified time (5 minutes?), or stops with the engine running for more than a specified time (5 minutes?) or the engine stops too frequently etc. etc. you are deemed to be driving in a congested area , and 1 unit is deducted from your on-board account. If your account goes in to the red, *nothing* happens. However, the next time you try to start the engine, it won't start until you have brought your account back into the black. NO tracking needed! And inexpensive as no roadside network, no satellites either. The boxes would be cheap to make and install (and would be checked at MOT time). Driving without a working one would attract a heavy fine. Cars arriving from overseas would have to have them installed for the duration of their stay. You choose your route and time. No need for C zones. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
