Steve writes:
Yes, that was the point of the charge, i.e. to increase the movement of
transport in the zone. To argue that because the road was clear you should
not pay is nonsensical.

So it's not a "congestion" charge then - it's yet another road use
charge. Better tell Ken to change the name...

--
Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer VSP at GMP, UK
Sun Microsystems

"Progress is not expedited by frequent requests for progress reports"

Jonathan Marten - Volume Systems Products UK wrote:
Steve writes:
Yes, that was the point of the charge, i.e. to increase the movement of
transport in the zone. To argue that because the road was clear you should
not pay is nonsensical.

So it's not a "congestion" charge then - it's yet another road use
charge.

Nah, that just means that it's working.

--
Steven O'Neill
www.bridgetolls.org

Personally I would drive further into the zone and make a day of it. You
have paid for a days worth after all. Its surprising how much congestion you
could make in a single car especially if you treat it as a day out. Take
some sandwiches and fizzy drink!

Next time, get your £5 worth. And if WE are really lucky perhaps you can
chalk up mad Ken as road kill!

(I'm not anti congestion charge, with a little more thought, and perhaps a
sliding scale over a wider area it will be good, but mad Ken is not the man
to direct it, we need someone who is actually living on the same planet as
the rest of us )


I.



"Nick" wrote in message
om...
In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive. In the morning I would leave the private car
park, enter the zone to drive 30 seconds or even less on a deserted
side street to reach the zone exit and enter a dual lane main road
with no problems and not affecting the almost non-flow of traffic on
that particular road. Not believing that I'd have to pay 5 pounds for
the privilege of my negligible zone journey to exit the zone I've not
only one fine so far (unjust but I can live with it), but the prospect
of upwards of a thousands pounds or more. This is patently unjust and
I wonder how the scheme handles these cases. Any experiences? At a
pinch perhaps one would be elligible for a residents discount although
for someone technically not a resident, on the face of it probably
not.

From a legal standpoint, is anyone aware of any test cases so far that
challenge the reasonableness of a fixed charge? Charging the same of
someone making essentially a non journey and someone spending all day
driving in the zone, adding to not only congestion of traffic but also
that of street goers lungs from polution seems contestable and
unreasonable on the basis of any tests of reasonableness.

Perhaps the charging system should only charge if a driver is within
the zone for more than a certain period of time, and if entry to the
zone was not on file when recording a zone exit before a certain time
in the morning then no fee should be charged. This would probably not
reduce revenue much and be considerably more reasonable.

n.

In terms of legal cases, here's something I'd love to hear your
opinions on:

Was driving just outside the congestion charging zone, and had to turn
the car around. Dipped into a small alley, came out and went on my way
in the opposite direction. I didn't know if I'd been in the zone or
not when I u-ied the car (was a little bit lost). So... simple enough,
called up TFL and this is how the conversation went:

Me : Excuse me, I don't know what to do, I may have entered the
congestion charging zone, but I can't be sure. Can you tell me if I
have been or not?

TFL: I'm sorry, but we don't have that information.

Me : Really? Ok... so what should I do? I mean, I don't want to waste
£5 if I haven't been in the zone.

TFL: Well, if you don't pay and you were in the zone you will be
charged £40.

Me : So you can't tell me if I've been in the zone or not, but if I
have, and I don't know like you, unless I pay now, I lose £40, and of
course, you're not going to refund me the £5 if I haven't been in the
zone?

TFL: I'm sorry sir.

Now, from a legal standpoint, where does this leave you and me, the
driver? This is flagrant double standards. The REAL reason they
can't/don't want to tell you is that their rate of detection might
only be 75%ish. So, to not lose 25% of their potential revenue, what
do they do? Scare tactics. £10 if you pay after 10, no monthly billing
(again, 25% loss here cos they can only charge what they've detected),
no information for people like me who call and aren't sure if they've
been in the zone or not. I'm sure from a jurisprudence perspective,
this is illegal.

I think it's time someone took TFL to court and addressed these
issues. I'm happy to pay my charge, but it's anathema to me to have to
pay for a service I may have not used under duress.

On 4 Dec 2003 07:27:03 -0800, deja user wrote:
Me : Excuse me, I don't know what to do, I may have entered the
congestion charging zone, but I can't be sure. Can you tell me if I
have been or not?

TFL: I'm sorry, but we don't have that information.

snip

Now, from a legal standpoint, where does this leave you and me, the
driver? This is flagrant double standards. The REAL reason they
can't/don't want to tell you is that their rate of detection might
only be 75%ish.

That may or may not be true but I expect the real reason they can't
tell you is the information isn't available in real time at the
call centre. The system probably works by generating a list of
recorded number plates and comparing it at the end of the day with
the list that paid.

David

deja user wrote:
In terms of legal cases, here's something I'd love to hear your
opinions on:

Was driving just outside the congestion charging zone, and had to turn
the car around. Dipped into a small alley, came out and went on my way
in the opposite direction. I didn't know if I'd been in the zone or
not when I u-ied the car (was a little bit lost).

You mean you were not paying sufficient attention to see whether there were
any "C" signs at the entrance to this "alleyway"? Are you sure you didn't
go through any red lights or down one-way streets the wrong way as well?

So... simple enough,
called up TFL and this is how the conversation went:

Me : Excuse me, I don't know what to do, I may have entered the
congestion charging zone, but I can't be sure. Can you tell me if I
have been or not?

TFL: I'm sorry, but we don't have that information.
snip

I'm sure from a jurisprudence perspective, this is illegal.

Why are you sure? What law do you think is being broken?

I think it's time someone took TFL to court and addressed these
issues. I'm happy to pay my charge, but it's anathema to me to have to
pay for a service I may have not used under duress.

Not sure where the duress comes in. You failed to notice whether you
entered the zone. Hardly TfL's fault.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message ...
deja user wrote:
In terms of legal cases, here's something I'd love to hear your
opinions on:

Was driving just outside the congestion charging zone, and had to turn
the car around. Dipped into a small alley, came out and went on my way
in the opposite direction. I didn't know if I'd been in the zone or
not when I u-ied the car (was a little bit lost).

You mean you were not paying sufficient attention to see whether there were
any "C" signs at the entrance to this "alleyway"? Are you sure you didn't
go through any red lights or down one-way streets the wrong way as well?

So... simple enough,
called up TFL and this is how the conversation went:

Me : Excuse me, I don't know what to do, I may have entered the
congestion charging zone, but I can't be sure. Can you tell me if I
have been or not?

TFL: I'm sorry, but we don't have that information.
snip

I'm sure from a jurisprudence perspective, this is illegal.

Why are you sure? What law do you think is being broken?

I think it's time someone took TFL to court and addressed these
issues. I'm happy to pay my charge, but it's anathema to me to have to
pay for a service I may have not used under duress.

Not sure where the duress comes in. You failed to notice whether you
entered the zone. Hardly TfL's fault.

I agree with Richard, although I do understand if you are lost in
London it may be all too easy to make a mistake, take the wrong
turning and enter the zone. It is TfL's responsibility to put the
correct signs at the zone boundary. However, it is the driver's
responsibility to learn the meaning of ALL traffic signs - and keep an
eye out for them. Not noticing them, or not knowing the meaning is no
defence.

TfL would not be able to confirm whether you had entered the zone
unless your number plate was read by a camera. But you were still
liable for the charge from the moment you crossed the boundary,
whether you were photographed or not.

You mean you were not paying sufficient attention to see whether there were
any "C" signs at the entrance to this "alleyway"? Are you sure you didn't
go through any red lights or down one-way streets the wrong way as well?

While I don't appreciate the tone of your reply, when I get lost
sometimes (and I still do in parts of London), I'm not 100 focused on
looking for the "C" signs. Fortunately, I do keep an eye out for red
lights and one-way signs, pedestrians etc. I don't think the "C" ranks
on the same scale in terms of importance. I'm sure if you took a look
around the zone, there would not be 100% complete coverage if you were
taking the very small roads into account.

I'm sure from a jurisprudence perspective, this is illegal.

Why are you sure? What law do you think is being broken?

I said jurisprudence, maybe I was using the wrong word. Basically in
principle, I am confident that this is illegal (to say to someone that
they have to pay up or pay a fine, but if they have not used the
service, that they're entitled to no refund). I was expecting the lady
to say she'd make a note on the account, and if it turned out I hadn't
used the service I'd receive a refund on my credit card.

I think it's time someone took TFL to court and addressed these
issues. I'm happy to pay my charge, but it's anathema to me to have to
pay for a service I may have not used under duress.

Not sure where the duress comes in. You failed to notice whether you
entered the zone. Hardly TfL's fault.

Touche. If I were to adopt the same line of argument, I could argue
that TfL have not put up a sufficient number of notices etc that I as
a driver, while paying due attention to pedestrians, red lights, and
one-way-signals could take notice of the "C". Of course, that's just
me being childish in response to your rather sarcastic reply. Duress
is that if you don't pay now, you pay £40 later, even if you don't
know whether you've been in the zone or not.

I think the system is good, but monthly billing, and a fairer approach
towards matters of the above mentioned nature are in order. We're
innocent till proven guilty in this country, why should I have to pay
a charge for a service I may not have used?