Satellite Tolls?

[Bubba Wheels]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/tra...p?story=644303

U.K. plan for drivers to 'pay by the mile." And I thought the new tolls around Chicago were steep.

[Desnudo]

That's brilliant. As long as they don't start using the income non-infrastructure items.

[Ryan S]

I wonder why the government did not mention this during the election campaign? Not to mention the fact that they did not publicise their plans for tax (and stealth tax) increases.

If the satellites are tracking you, you also know they will be tracking your speed, so I would expect the number of speeding tickets to go through the roof.

At least I can honestly say I did not and would never vote for the bastards.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I wonder why the government did not mention this during the election campaign? Not to mention the fact that they did not publicise their plans for tax (and stealth tax) increases.

If the satellites are tracking you, you also know they will be tracking your speed, so I would expect the number of speeding tickets to go through the roof.

At least I can honestly say I did not and would never vote for the bastards.

Careful, your sounding almost American

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Careful, your sounding almost American

no reason to be insulting and vulgar.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I wonder why the government did not mention this during the election campaign? Not to mention the fact that they did not publicise their plans for tax (and stealth tax) increases.

If the satellites are tracking you, you also know they will be tracking your speed, so I would expect the number of speeding tickets to go through the roof.

At least I can honestly say I did not and would never vote for the bastards.

Tory? Didn't the article say it was replacing existing taxes? I'd be less worried about speeding tickets and more worried about the mind control implants that are sure to be part of Phase Two.

[Pyser]

california has thought of adopting the same thing.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Tory? Didn't the article say it was replacing existing taxes?

Initially the media talk was of replacing existing taxes, now the talk is of reduction. And the other tax hikes I was talking about were unrelated income tax rises.

[Desnudo]

The system really makes sense to me. From a theoretical standpoint, it's a step in the right direction. The obvious concern is that it might end up an increase, not a direct replacement.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Pyser

california has thought of adopting the same thing.

This is what I was going to say, it has gotten some talk in the trucking circles.

[JPhillips]

Desnudo: Can I ask why you think this is a step in the right direction?

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

If the satellites are tracking you, you also know they will be tracking your speed, so I would expect the number of speeding tickets to go through the roof.

And this would be a problem because...?

If you are going to speed, you deserve to get a ticket.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

And this would be a problem because...?

If you are going to speed, you deserve to get a ticket.

not really. reckless driving deserves a ticket. Speed limits in some places can be complete bullshit, IMO, and I have no problem speeding in them. I am not reckless, and in no way endangering anyone else.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

If you are going to speed, you deserve to get a ticket.

If they enforce sensible limits I won't speed.

Near where I live we have one of the worst roads in the country. It had speed limits of 70 or 60 mph. A few miles up the road we have a far safer, wide laned motorway, but it has a strictly enforced limit of 50 mph. The dangerous road should have a 50 limit, and it would be quite safe to drive at 80 mph + on the motorway

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by Cringer

not really. reckless driving deserves a ticket. Speed limits in some places can be complete bullshit, IMO, and I have no problem speeding in them. I am not reckless, and in no way endangering anyone else.

Actually, in some cases (such as obvious speed traps) it is safer to speed.

The most appropriate way to determine a speed limit for an existing roadway is to monitor vehicle's speed on the roadway. The speed limit gets pegged (rounding down) at the 85% of travelling motorists. There have been many studies that indicate that without extremely aggressive enforcement, the posted speed limit has little bearing on what speed motorists travel. Essentially, motorists drive at the speed limit at which they feel comfortable.

Speed differential between two vehicles is a much greater concern than the raw speed of the vehicles themselves.

When a posted speed limit is set artifically low and heavily enforced (a speed trap) it promotes this differential, thereby actually increasing the risk of accident on the roadway.

Of course, none of this information helps if you get a speeding ticket

[Ksyrup]

We had a similar thread to this a few months ago, about doing away with taxes on gas and charging a "mileage tax" based on your use of the roads.

[rkmsuf]

I'm for anything that gets rid of tool booths.

4.50 and a half hour wait to cross the Throgs Neck my ass. At least if you are going to rob me don't make me wait all day.

[Super Ugly]

I was listening to a report on this as I sat in my car, stuck in traffic.

Where I live the biggest contributing factor to traffic on the roads in the morning is all the parents in their big jeeps taking their little brats one quarter of a mile to school. I'm not kidding - during school holidays my usual 1 hour drive to work is chopped to about 25 minutes. Anything that gets these gated communities of vehicles off the road is fine by me. If the government goes ahead with this tax but at the same time pumps some money into our lacklustre public transport system at the same time, then I'm also happy.

Sadly, as people have pointed out, our public transport is unlikely to improve and it could end up pushing poor people off the road altogether. Wealthy drivers in company cars will get their charges reimbursed by their companies (my dad, at the moment, pays no petrol costs whatsoever, thanks to his company car - it's unlikely that this new scheme would affect him). It'd be the rest of us that get forced off the road, unable to pay steep charges.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Arctus

When a posted speed limit is set artifically low and heavily enforced (a speed trap) it promotes this differential, thereby actually increasing the risk of accident on the roadway.

Please get several million people in the states of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, California, and a few others, to tell this to their state legislators. Interstate speed limits of 70 mph for cars and 55 for trucks is not a good thing, but they still do it.

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Please get several million people in the states of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, California, and a few others, to tell this to their state legislators. Interstate speed limits of 70 mph for cars and 55 for trucks is not a good thing, but they still do it.

Please, please, please tell me that trucks must stay in the far right lane and the speed limit for that lane is 55 MPH. If so, it would only be "typically government stupid". If (as is the case in most states) trucks can use all interstate lanes except for the far left, resulting in a situation where a car in the middle lane can legally go 70 MPH and trucks can only go 55 MPH; it is without doubt the dumbest traffic law I have ever heard of (and I'm a civil engineer that has spent over 12 years designing and constructing highways and roadways).

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Arctus

Please, please, please tell me that trucks must stay in the far right lane and the speed limit for that lane is 55 MPH. If so, it would only be "typically government stupid". If (as is the case in most states) trucks can use all interstate lanes except for the far left, resulting in a situation where a car in the middle lane can legally go 70 MPH and trucks can only go 55 MPH; it is without doubt the dumbest traffic law I have ever heard of (and I'm a civil engineer that has spent over 12 years designing and constructing highways and roadways).

No, in open road (non-city areas) where you only have 4 lanes (2 each way) then trucks can be in any lane usually. Usually you may see posted signs that say 'Left lane for passing only' but that applies to everyone. So a truck going 56 mph could pass a truck going 54 mph, whie cars are coming up behind them going 70+. In construction zones, where everyone is usually restricted to 55, then you will see 'Trucks use right/left lane.'

In cities, you will get 'No trucks in left lane' when there is 3 or more lanes each direction, but in most cities that is not as big of a problem because there is usually a speed limit of 55 for everyone.

Ohio and Michigan are two of the worst states, because they crack down on trucks, so the split speed limits are a problem. Illinois has been trying to get the speed limit for trucks raised, but as I understand the Governor has been holding that back. There the State Troopers are usually pretty good with letting trucks go 60 or more though.

The only good thing about Ohio is that they did make the I-80/I-90 toll road one speed limit, 65 for everyone. This was at first said to be a test which could led to changing the spllit limits all over the state, but it is more of a way to get trucks to use the toll road IMO.

Anyways, the whole idea of split speed limits is indeed a joke, and dangerous to me.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Arctus

Please, please, please tell me that trucks must stay in the far right lane and the speed limit for that lane is 55 MPH. If so, it would only be "typically government stupid". If (as is the case in most states) trucks can use all interstate lanes except for the far left, resulting in a situation where a car in the middle lane can legally go 70 MPH and trucks can only go 55 MPH; it is without doubt the dumbest traffic law I have ever heard of (and I'm a civil engineer that has spent over 12 years designing and constructing highways and roadways).

It's the latter in IL. Trucks can use any lane on almost any interstate/highway, and technically speaking, they are restricted to 55. I cannot COUNT the number of times I've been stuck behind semi convoys going 60, taking up a zillion lanes of traffic whilst they pass one another.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

It's the latter in IL. Trucks can use any lane on almost any interstate/highway, and technically speaking, they are restricted to 55. I cannot COUNT the number of times I've been stuck behind semi convoys going 60, taking up a zillion lanes of traffic whilst they pass one another.

In Chicago, that is just a free-for-all. Do what you have to do to survive. 60 mph is a pretty safe speed for trucks throughout the state, in which you really do not need to worry much about getting a ticket. Just not something you should take for granted though as a driver....

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Anyways, the whole idea of split speed limits is indeed a joke, and dangerous to me.

Not to threadjack, but what about day/night speed limits? Same thing?

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Not to threadjack, but what about day/night speed limits? Same thing?

You do not see them too much anymore, atleast in the south/midwest. Texas has 70 day/65 night. For the most part I am ok with them, I can understand the desire to try to get people to go a little slower when visibility is lower. If it was a more drastic change, like 70 day/ 55 night, then I would think that is kind of dumb.

As long as the speed limit is the same for everyone though, that is the main thing.

And don't worry about the thread jacking, I think I kind of did that myself.

[chinaski]

This is coming to a state near you.

Oregon, my state, is starting a year long test run of this very soon. 300 drivers will receive GPS trackers, they then have to get gas at participating gas stations. When you go to the pump, the gas station reads from the GPS tracker on your car and records how many miles you drove since your last visit. You then pay a tax on the gas you are currently purchasing based on how many miles. 100 miles = 8% tax kinda thing (not the real tax, just an example).

My question is.. whats the point? If the state taxes collected currently dont do the job, then balance the budget you lazy bastards.

Ive always wanted a state run non profit car insurance program paid for by a gas tax. Lets use the GPS system for that. Vote for me!

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by chinaski

My question is.. whats the point? If the state taxes collected currently dont do the job, then balance the budget you lazy bastards.

We blew all our vehicle tax money on a monorail

[JPhillips]

That's better than an escalator to nowhere.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

We blew all our vehicle tax money on a monorail

There's nothing on earth like a genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car Monorail!

[st.cronin]

Insurance rates should also be 'by the mile.' There's no reason why I should pay the same for auto insurance as somebody my same age and gender and record who drives 4 times as many miles as I do.

[AlexB]

Here's my take on the whole scheme - this gets announced, but within the briefing they say that a trial will be undertaken (at an undefined time) in Leeds, and the system is very unlikely to go national for around 10 years.

This will be debated to death, mainly along the angle of 'the goverment are using drivers as cashcows' (which they are, mainly through excessively and illogically located speed cameras), people will then forget about it due to the time lapse before commencement.

Once it has been forgotten about, the government will then announce that they have undertaken a strategic review and decided that there are indeed too many speed cameras, and they will implement a prolonged (but slow) programme of removing many of them. Everybody will think wow - this government's finally clued into the speed camera farce, and they will gain support at roughly the time of an election/major referendum/whenever needed.

Then either two things will happen: they'll be voted out of office before the 10 year timeframe is up and it will land squarely on the new government's lap who will be majorly unpopular for a scheme they have simply inherited (such an inordinate amouth of money will be needed to set up the infrastructure for this that it will be almost impossible to just cancel - think lost billions, jobs, etc), or it will be introduced at the beginning of a new Labour term when they have years to recover from the popularity hit (which is the same reason they have released these plans now just after being reelected despite not mentioning this or anything even resembling it in the pre-election manifesto) which they will try an spin by the creation of jobs to run the scheme (which basically equate to these people having to get these new jobs in order to pay the increased costs of being mobile)

Or maybe I've grown too cynical...

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Insurance rates should also be 'by the mile.' There's no reason why I should pay the same for auto insurance as somebody my same age and gender and record who drives 4 times as many miles as I do.

exactly!

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Not to threadjack, but what about day/night speed limits? Same thing?

Generally speaking, they are not warranted but harmless. People do tend to drive a bit slower at night, so I see no problem with them. The only time they are truely required is when a vehicle is driving in a steep sag vertical curve (a steep down grade followed very quickly by a steep up grade). The vehicles headlights do not shine nearly as far ahead of the vehicle as they should as the vehicle transitions from the down grade to the up grade, limiting sight distance and warranting a speed reduction. When this situation happens, it is usually handled by a cautionary black on yellow sign showing a reduced speed limit through the sag curve.

The only time I have driven on a road with a day/night speed limit was in the Florida Keys. It is done because of the Key deer, an endangered species, that populate several of the Keys and tend to get near or cross the roads late at night. It works well, because Florida does a good job of posting signs that effectively get out the message "Look, we know you think that driving 35 MPH on US Route 1 at night is a bit silly; but we are not doing this to bust your balls. We just need you to drive slow for a bit to make sure you don't run over one of our endangered Key Deer."

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Arctus

The only time they are truely required is when a vehicle is driving in a steep sag vertical curve (a steep down grade followed very quickly by a steep up grade). The vehicles headlights do not shine nearly as far ahead of the vehicle as they should as the vehicle transitions from the down grade to the up grade, limiting sight distance and warranting a speed reduction.

Ooooo, add a curve in the transition from down to up, throw in a little rain, and it makes for spectacular 4 truck accidents in Kentucky because three trucks never see the first one flipped over and drive right into it......

Saw it about a month or two ago....