Helen Deborah Vecht wrote in message
For about half your £1000, you can buy a Brompton folding bike that you
can leave in your boot or under a desk etc. Then you can park your car
outside the CC Zone and whizz to your girlfriend.

You will also find other uses for it...

Thanks Helen, an excellent suggestion.

Nick

In message , Nick
writes
A charge isn't the problem perse, but more that I
don't get my 5 pounds worth. 25 pence would be more reasonable.

I have some sympathy for this view. The one and only time I've had to
pay a CC was to retrieve my car from a car park on a Tuesday evening,
where it had been since Sunday (no CC), and drive it about a quarter of
a mile on an empty road to Euston. Of course, the next ten miles on
non-CC roads was a nightmare.
--
Roland Perry

(Nick) wrote in message om...
chris harrison wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:

In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
At what point, when it isn't deserted and you join a queue (thereby
contributing to that queue and hence the reason for the charge), should
you start paying?

Yep, I'd raise the same questions too if pushing the point you're
trying to make. A charge isn't the problem perse, but more that I
don't get my 5 pounds worth.

Yes you do. You drive within the zone and paying £5 within tyhe zone
is perfectly reasonable.

25 pence would be more reasonable. SE1.
Deverill street joins bartholomew street and you leave the zone. In
case it wasn't clear, it's not 100 yards into the zone (maybe 100 is
even an over estimate), but 100 yards on a side street that's not used
as a rabbit run or anything else and that leaves the zone and filters
into a free flowing dual lane road that leads out of town.

In that case park outside the zone and walk. The only way to get what
you want (which I submit is unreasonable) is to have lots of little
zones and charge a small amount for each one. Much harder to know
which zones you travel in and need to purchase a permit for and much
more expensive to police. The scheme as it operates is a sensible
compromise between being unequivocally "fair" and being workable in
practice.

jb

In message , 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.

I'm arguing that it's inequitable for me to pay the whole charge to
drive a very short distance (on a road that pre-congestion-charge was
just as empty) as someone who is using the central roads all day.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:24:38 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , 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.

I'm arguing that it's inequitable for me to pay the whole charge to
drive a very short distance (on a road that pre-congestion-charge was
just as empty) as someone who is using the central roads all day.

It is inequitable. The Congestion Charge at present is pretty crude.

Maybe the technology and move towards a metered approach?


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , 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.

I'm arguing that it's inequitable for me to pay the whole charge to
drive a very short distance (on a road that pre-congestion-charge was
just as empty) as someone who is using the central roads all day.
--

If leeway was given to people going a hundred yards inside the zone then the
people going two hundred yards would whinge. If the rules were relaxed to
allow them to get away with it that means that the zone is reduced in size.
The people a hundred yards inside that boundary would also whinge and the
boundary gets moved again and eventually we end up with the original
situation.

All such measures are inequitable to some. However in order to resolve a
problem a line has to be drawn somewhere, that line was drawn at a given
point on the ground and made obvious to all. You crossed it knowingly.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:30:32 +0000, Robert Woolley
wrote:

It is inequitable. The Congestion Charge at present is pretty crude.

Maybe the technology and move towards a metered approach?

Why? The charge is arguably more aimed at preventing avoidable
journeys, of which many are short.

If someone has a need to drive around *all day* within the Zone, and
are willing to pay all the other charges associated with this (parking
etc), they probably have a genuine need for their vehicle.

This is the reason, incidentally, why there is no season ticket/block
booking facility (other than for residents). It is supposed to be as
inconvenient/expensive as possible - not to be made easy.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

In message , Cast_Iron
writes
that line was drawn at a given
point on the ground and made obvious to all. You crossed it knowingly.

sigh Yes, London is full GO AWAY. (And I have).
--
Roland Perry

Neil Williams wrote:
wrote:

It is inequitable. The Congestion Charge at present is pretty crude.

Maybe the technology and move towards a metered approach?

Why? The charge is arguably more aimed at preventing avoidable
journeys, of which many are short.

If someone has a need to drive around *all day* within the Zone, and
are willing to pay all the other charges associated with this (parking
etc), they probably have a genuine need for their vehicle.

This is the reason, incidentally, why there is no season ticket/block
booking facility (other than for residents). It is supposed to be as
inconvenient/expensive as possible - not to be made easy.

And that's bad policy! Making it expensive is OK, because at least TfL
get the money - but making it inconvenient is just stupid - businesses
lose much of the benefit that the congestion charge would have brought,
and TfL get nothing.

(Nick) wrote in message . com...

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.

Regardless of the 'natural justice' of your agument I don't think you
have any sort of legal case. There were legal challenges to the
scheme before it went in but they failed. The Government has passed a
law legalising the principle of Congestion Charging Schemes - and
leaving the details up to local authorities. Sir Kenneth (the local
authority in this case) has, after carrying out public consultation,
brought in a scheme in accordance with that law.