|
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
(Post 7838715)
Thats where the contention is though, I don't believe the gov't give a **** about the environment and by charging £75 its enough to generate them a huge amount of money per year in extra tax, but its a relatively small annual amount that 99% of parents will choose to just pay it and continue using car on the school run.
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
(Post 7838715)
It will do nothing to prevent any sort of global warming that the tree huggers believe exists, but it will do a lot to bump up the gov't coffers so they can dish more money out to the lazy *******s that dont work. :(
|
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
(Post 7838744)
Pete you have a very black and white outlook on life, but maybe that is down to where you live and you maybe have decent transport links? I dont know what Worthing is like, but I live on the fringe of the Yorkshire Dales and I have friends that live in farmhouses in the middle of nowhere, and I mean it is a 3 mile trek up a rough track just to get to their house!!
This sort of housing isn't uncommon where I live, and in places around Settle etc you can literally live miles and miles from anywhere, the local high school could be 15 miles away. So you would be quite happy to send a 12 year old girl walking 15 miles each day on her own? :confused: I would certainly never let that happen if I lived in that location. In areas like where I am we just dont have the infrastructure or public transport to cope with any of these proposals for people that live in the surrounding areas. There are some houses out on the A682 which is Britain's most dangerous road (Google it) and a road I use often. The 2 mile stretch from the houses to the closest village doesn't have any pavements, it is used as a racetrack by bikers and it doesn't have a bus route. Last week I witnessed a terrible 100mph bike crash on that stretch and the bikers body nearly arrived in the back of our car (somehow he was OK, god knows how as I saw his body flying through the air right behind our car!!!). This is actually quite a residential area and leads down into the village where I am, but the nearest high school is probably 7-8 miles away in the next town. There are no bus routes so what are any of the children supposed to do, bearing in mind you are classing anyone at high school (12/13) as responsbile enough to walk to/from school? If I lived in those houses on the outskirts I wouldn't want my lad walking down that road. :( And I imagine this £75 charge would not be policed at the school gates, it would be charged to anyone with children of school age or you just move the congestion problem along. Its stealth tax however you want to dress it up. When I say there is no excuse for teenager, I mean in a similar area to Richmond, where the same problems exist, obviously. |
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
(Post 7838797)
You would imagine where the congestion and safety issues dont exist, there would be no need to implement the charge.
When I say there is no excuse for teenager, I mean in a similar area to Richmond, where the same problems exist, obviously. Kids travel for free on buses and tubes up until the age of 16 and then can apply for further to 18-19 in in further education. No real need for parents to take their kids other than they want to in most cases. areas well served with public transport. I did a little work with TFL/Oyster scheme last year. In places/cases like this it would seem to make sense. |
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
(Post 7838811)
Pretty sure Richmond is part of the TFL Oyster Card scheme.
Kids travel for free on buses and tubes up until the age of 16 and then can apply for further to 18-19 in in further education. No real need for parents to take their kids other than they want to in most cases. areas well served with public transport. I did a little work with TFL/Oyster scheme last year. In places/cases like this it would seem to make sense. Certainly in London there really is no excuse to drive your teenage kids to school (excpetional circumstances aside). Of course the transport link in other parts of the country need to be improved, but thats where the school bus comes in. |
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
(Post 7838791)
It's got nothing to do with the Government. Its Richmond local council - Which I beleie is a Lib Dem run council.
Its got nothing to do with Global Warming either. The reasons given are to ease congestion and to improve safety. And again, its not going to government coffers, so quite what people on benefit have got to do with it I have no idea. Safety? Well that's just nonsense. Just like "speed cameras" improve safety? It's never about safety, it's never about congestion - it's ALL about how much money this bunch of incompetents can scrounge out of us, be it local or central government, they're all the same - only looking out for themselves! Not a go at you, just venting my frustration in all of this! |
Originally Posted by Bugeye_Scoob
(Post 7838876)
This is what they always say though Pete. In reality, the congestion charge has improved things so marginally that even now they have to spin the figures to make things look better than they are. Note that they'll commonly take surveys during half term; in fact, they launched it over half term then touted it as incredibly successful - well of course it was - no school run! I was working in Oxford Circus when the congestion charge launched and I can safely say it made absolutely NO difference whatsoever. Well, except generating immense amounts of revenue for TFL - and yet still prices for tube and bus go up......:wonder:
Safety? Well that's just nonsense. Just like "speed cameras" improve safety? It's never about safety, it's never about congestion - it's ALL about how much money this bunch of incompetents can scrounge out of us, be it local or central government, they're all the same - only looking out for themselves! Not a go at you, just venting my frustration in all of this! |
Basically, I pay road tax, fuel tax and all the other costs, if I want to drop my kids off at school in the car then that is my right, I personally dont, my wife does as its over a mile each way, twice a day, it isnt practical to walk every day, they do occasionally but that depends on the weather, plus has anyone actually tried walking with young kids, IT TAKES FOOKIN HOURS !
I dont understand why people who take their kids to school have any less right to be on the roads, ok, if its a few yards then it is just laziness but thats down to the individual and their conscience, its such a cliche, school run mums in 4 by 4's, oh arent they silly little mummies who have nothing better to do, I am an important Fax machine salesman in my 320D about to sell a Kyocera or two to a very big client for several 'K', how dare she get in my way ! its kind of an accepted social stereotype and maybe some dont need to drive, are lazy and have nothing better to do but the bulk will probably be working as well, running a home, bringing up kids and getting mr Fax Salesman his tea, I expect a lot drop their kids off on the way to work. Perhaps to miss the school run, get up a bit earlier and miss it, dont get up at eight o clock and drop yourself right in the middle of it and moan, its not a new thing. 2 of mine get dropped off in the car, 1 goes by school bus, a cheque paid by me every 3 months for about £300. There is so much sanctimony on here about kids and parents, all these self contained, hard edged, loaded, opinionated childless blokes, obsessed with gadgets and cars, yes, me too but live and let live, its tough bringing up kids, yes its our choice but someone has to, someone did it for you and to be told someone wants more money off you to make a journey thats already paid for is annoying, they can fook right off. As for Vodka mum, go and tell her what scrounging **** she is, for interaction, no so she can get rid of the kid to watch telly. No healthy young person should be sat at home without something to do, be it kids or work |
Personally I think its a good idea. Its quite amzing how many kids live close to school but yet whose parents choose to drive them when there are alternatives that would also be of benefit to the children, ie, getting excercise, gaining roadcraft, interaction with other kids that they don't get when driven.
|
Originally Posted by turbogav
(Post 7839377)
Personally I think its a good idea. Its quite amzing how many kids live close to school but yet whose parents choose to drive them when there are alternatives that would also be of benefit to the children, ie, getting excercise, gaining roadcraft, interaction with other kids that they don't get when driven.
I agree that the walk to school has many plus points, as you have mentioned, and should be encouraged where possible. As for people saying school is close, but it's a hassle with a child, well people managed for long enough before cars were so convenient. I'm not talking about people who live a significant distance from school, or on their way to work etc. but it is frustrating when you see people jump in their car, to travel about 10 minutes walk away (10 minutes with child, at child pace), when they don't need to. A journey, I had to do when growing up, and my family also worked. Funnily enough, I've had good road sense as a pedestrian, maybe the walk helped teach me the way to behave in part. All that said, I still don't think a blanket charge is the way to go. Not everyone on the school run is lazy, nor are they all just wanting to get back to the TV as quickly as possible, there will be people who need to do this, just as much as there are many who don't. To just charge will not take this into account, and I fear those who will be worst hit are those in the middle again. Those who really don't need to make the journey by car, and can't afford the charge, may be discouraged, good, but then you will have those at the other end, who don't need to do this, but are well off enough to just pay up, which is frustrating, as depending on the area, even with a charge, you may well find it actually makes bugger all difference to the amount of cars on the road, other than they're paying for the journey. Those worst hit, are those who do need to make the journey, for whatever reason, but yet again get hit for another charge, they may have no way of avoiding, I feel that is a little unfair. |
It's just another stealth tax however anyone wishes to dress it up. The owner of one of the nurseries affected was on the radio last week and an executive decision had been made whereby the nursery would absorb the charge on the parent's behalf. They were worried the charge (even though it's ultimately small it just p*sses people off) would result in parents taking their kids to another nursery outside the zone. So in this case the parents won't even pay it but it'll still be a nice little earner for the council.
Maybe this is the principle with stealth taxes; no one tax on its' own is large enough to cause a revolt so they just get paid and everything carries on as before, with our wallets a little thinner and the authorities with enough extra cash to fund another one of their other misguided cock-ups. I wonder how many people with no connection to the schools whatsoever will inadvertantly park their cars in the wrong place at the right time and end up with some kind of fixed penalty notice demanding £100 (or £50 if you pay within 14 days, hurrah). This is as immoral an idea as charging someone higher council tax because they have a nice view from their kitchen window. Three cheers for New Labour and the oppressive regime they have spent 10 years perfecting. Kevin |
Its also always a 1 way street - the gov't, local council, whoever it is love to slam these charges on us but we get nothing back for it!!!
I work from home so I only do about 1-2k miles a year driving, my kid will be going to the local school down the road so I will walk him there (as I am self employed so I can be flexible). All of this means I'm not only less polluting and clogging up the roads, I am also self sufficient - do I get any benefit or reward for making this effort? Do I bollocks, in fact I pay more in tax and NI than some employed folk, and I don't even get to benefit from schemes such as the Cycle Scheme as they won't do it for the self employed :( Its all take take in this country. :( |
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
(Post 7838153)
As a general rule - Where there is a school, there is some form of public trasnport - be it bus train or school bus.
Ahh, but you can function on one lung - but not half a heart ;) Therefore the Heart is the more important organ :D Why would you have to choose between work and school? Like I said, if the kids are 5,6,7 fair enough. If the kids are in thier teens they should be able to make thier own way to school. If you insist on driving teenagers to school then you shoudl have to pay a price for clogging up the roads with unnecessary traffic. What that price should be is a different matter. When I went to school I had to take a 6 mile bus ride but I was lucky in that I lived close to London and the buses were all good old London Transport which used to be reliable in those days. I also think it is innaccurate to say that transporting your child to school in the above cases is unecessary. Les |
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 7840453)
It may be fine in towns etc but where I am the local bus comes occasionally every three hours! You really have to make allowances for those who live out of towns.
We are talking about already congested areas, getting even more congested by unnecessary school runs. |
Maybe what would be better is an incentive given to those who don't use cars, rather than a charge to those who do. As I've said before, many people will use cars who simply don't need to, but even in built up areas, there will be those who do need to, and a charge like this won't factor that into the equation. It will be across the board, without any account for individual cicumstances. Not all areas have brilliant public transport, even built up ones.
|
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
(Post 7840487)
As I said before Les, the likelyhood is in more rural areas, that the problem of congestion etc is not going to exist, therefore you would not need to introduce such a scheme.
We are talking about already congested areas, getting even more congested by unnecessary school runs. Les |
Originally Posted by Lisawrx
(Post 7840506)
Maybe what would be better is an incentive given to those who don't use cars, rather than a charge to those who do. As I've said before, many people will use cars who simply don't need to, but even in built up areas, there will be those who do need to, and a charge like this won't factor that into the equation. It will be across the board, without any account for individual cicumstances. Not all areas have brilliant public transport, even built up ones.
Lisa - you make a good point and this would be the common sense and decent/fair way to do it. What you highlight is that it is about making money via more taxes - stealth tax if you like, nothing more and nothing less. |
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
(Post 7840528)
Lisa - you make a good point and this would be the common sense and decent/fair way to do it.
What you highlight is that it is about making money via more taxes - stealth tax if you like, nothing more and nothing less. |
Originally Posted by Lisawrx
(Post 7840533)
Exactly, and that's what concerns me. It's like most things now, whenever there is an issue, throw a tax at it, and penalise people regardless of circumstances. If you want to change behaviour, or attempt to, then why not have positive incentives, rather than penalties? I would imagine this way would gain the trust of the masses, and not be seen as another charge in our already expensive lives. But, it won't make money, so probably wouldn't happen.
Now if you are on the dole/not working, etc then you will be offered a financial incentives to train or free nursery places (as i mentioned above) etc. Not money taken away if you just sit at home or turn up at the joke shop every two weeks or so and go through the motions. It is all about generating money from those who can pay - by can i mean earn and pay taxes already - heavily taxed and still being squeezed for more. WTF will the government do when the fuel runs out, not fossil fuel burning vehicles/fuel to tax! It is a joke |
Originally Posted by J4CKO
(Post 7839302)
There is so much sanctimony on here about kids and parents, all these self contained, hard edged, loaded, opinionated childless blokes, obsessed with gadgets and cars, yes, me too but live and let live, its tough bringing up kids, yes its our choice but someone has to, someone did it for you and to be told someone wants more money off you to make a journey thats already paid for is annoying, they can fook right off.
|
This is part of the problem Paul. I'm not going to rant about benefits, but what gets to me is that I'm on a low income, my fault so if others can refrain from having a go about that, it would be appreciated. The issue I have is that everything continues to rise, taxes just keep on going up, new ways of squeezing more come along, and to top it all, I'm now worse off under the new income tax. It's always people from low wage jobs, to those who are better off, but not rich who get hit the worst. The middle if you like. Those with more money than sense can just continue as they were (not saying they'd be happy either, but can afford it), and then those who seem to think the world owes them, and continue to live off those who actually know what a days work is.
|
Originally Posted by Lisawrx
(Post 7840642)
This is part of the problem Paul. I'm not going to rant about benefits, but what gets to me is that I'm on a low income, my fault so if others can refrain from having a go about that, it would be appreciated. The issue I have is that everything continues to rise, taxes just keep on going up, new ways of squeezing more come along, and to top it all, I'm now worse off under the new income tax. It's always people from low wage jobs, to those who are better off, but not rich who get hit the worst. The middle if you like. Those with more money than sense can just continue as they were (not saying they'd be happy either, but can afford it), and then those who seem to think the world owes them, and continue to live off those who actually know what a days work is.
I suspect some belt tightening is in order for us but its the ones who already have belts on the last notch that I worry about. |
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
(Post 7840487)
As I said before Les, the likelyhood is in more rural areas, that the problem of congestion etc is not going to exist, therefore you would not need to introduce such a scheme.
We are talking about already congested areas, getting even more congested by unnecessary school runs. I live in a semi rural area and our village would be a 100% prime candidate for this congestion scheme - the village is very busy and at peak times the main road is just a 2 mile traffic jam, congestion is terrible, and the 2 primary schools do clog up the roads thats a fact. :( But its still fairly rural and would be classed as such. But the bus routes are a joke. If I worked in Burnley (5 miles away) and needed to get a bus to work it would take over 1 hour to get there and I would need to change from one bus to another in between :rolleyes: And they only run every hour so the timings would be miles out :D |
But the bus routes are a joke. If I worked in Burnley (5 miles away) and needed to get a bus to work it would take over 1 hour to get there and I would need to change from one bus to another in between |
Originally Posted by SiPie
(Post 7840859)
Or cycle and take approx 15-20 mins (hills & wind dependant obviously)
But, this is in relation to taking kids to school/nursery, so where does the 1 year old fit on the bike? :D I am scared to death of those kids seats for bikes so would never use one of those. Yet another single bloke/no kids response ;) There is and never will be a single fit solution for all these issues, the sooner the public and the gov't realise that the better. |
Just another thing on this cycling business - there is always one person that pipes up with "you should cycle to work, its 100 miles away but will only take 10 minutes" type answers.
I've never worked anywhere that had showering facilities, so what do all you eco warriors that cycle to work every day do when you get there? What if you have a customer facing role and need to look (and smell) good when you get to your job? I'd be sweating like mad after cycling to work. :D |
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
(Post 7840881)
Yet another single bloke/no kids response ;)
There is and never will be a single fit solution for all these issues, the sooner the public and the gov't realise that the better. Neither of my kids get lifts to school/college - The oldest has to catch 2 trains and a bus to get to college. Of course there will be examples where it just is not practical to do anything other than drive, but I gurantee there will be plenty of other examples where it is completely unecessary.
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
I've never worked anywhere that had showering facilities,
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands