Safe Speed Forums

It doesn’t matter if you defeat the things, as long as you pay up in real time. The things want your money. The barriers will be down if the money doesn’t flow!



That’s what we have here. I raise it, I get shouted down by the yobbos and another notch creaks somewhere on the ratchet.



That would be true if the high-tech system was single use. But it’s not. Spin-offs are the main benefit. Track/trace/monitor /tax/insure/toll/inform/route /entertain/ identify/control /schedule are the verbs that spring to my mind.



Bacofoil would suppress a drive-by pass. That means the money doesn’t flow, and the barriers will stay down for that car. No trouble there. See above for the real reasons, which are largely cost related, and involve accurately attributing the full cost of motoring to those that want the benefit. Sort of like a congestion charge zone on steroids.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I see no Troll Alert, but check out
ad-hominem, would you?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Does anyone else notice the irony in the fact that Basingwerk is probably the most guilty of 'ad hominem' in here?? He dresses it up in sophistry, but it's still there.

Don't worry, Paul. Many people (IMHO better researched, more intelligent and more capable debaters than their victim) have shot Basingwerk down over and over again, but like the baddie in the terrible horror movie, he just implausibly and pointlessly gets back up again.

i think one things for sure...if they ever introduce any sort of road charging system the number of foreign registered cars around will multiply rapidly.....

All the things that BW warns you of are happening, and you continue to ineffectively bleat! When will you wake up to the reality of the problem that is facing you? It isn't cameras you hate, but bills! You expect others to foot the bill for your driving, and hate technology that attributes the costs directly back to you! Sorry, but the technology revolution is underway, and soon, attitudes like this will be as obsolete as plus fours! Posting in a beastly way won't change that!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Cash will be acceptable at the toll stations for a little while yet

_________________
I stole this .sig

I've already told you about the relative merits of hypocrisy, don't make me explain how sophistry is a virtue as well. And don't think that the odd IMHO clears things up between you and me - I do my best to treat you well (fairly well, anyway), although it is hard!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I can just see you in your sandwich board, BW.

'The end is nigh - repent, repent....'

I could get to like you, you know

_________________
I stole this .sig

Hmm - the ultimate in spin. Only you, BW, could turn characteristics that typify dishonesty and a lack of integrity into virtues.

Are you a cousin of Steve Callaghan?

It would be a challenge, I grant you. Tougher than brushing off hypocrisy, which was a doddle. As for Callaghan IMHO from what I hear he's a hacker with a double ID, assuming we are talking about the same bloke! No, I'm really a unique me. But thanks for asking.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Ok r11co, let's kill two birds with one stone on this sophistry business. Clearly, PaulF can't tolerate me, which leaves him in a rather odd spot, logically. He can't tolerate me because I can't tolerate speeders, and he calls me a hypocrite because I have broken the law myself.

He thinks I'm a hypocrite because I'm intolerant, but he can't tolerate me – you can see what this means, can't you? He says that I should tolerate something I don't like, but he can't tolerate something that he dislikes, i.e. me. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another, so this means that PaulF is a hypocrite as well. Wonder of wonders, not only is he a hypocrite, but an intolerant hypocrite. Now if that's sophistry, it's good sophistry! It wasn't much of a challenge after all!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Whooah. Stop right there. He can tolerate you fine - he just doesn't like your hypocrisy, and you accept you are a hypocrite for the reasons given. Hypocrisy is not to be appreciated, accepted or explained as it undermines honesty.

The rest is your opinion, and remind me... what was that you said earlier about opinions??

I have to admit, that's not only first class sophistry, but also the funniest thing I've read all day.

The only thing I'm still not quite clear on is whether your depection of PaulF as an intolerant hypocrite is actually intended as a compliment?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Basingwerk; Let me assure you that as unpleasant as I find your trolling, it certainly doesn't fall into the "can't tolerate" bracket. In order to appreciate normality and a fair spread of opinion in others, I actually think it's a good thing that someone like you comes along to spout crass drivel. I will hand it to you: As others have observed and posted, every time someone defeats your rather warped, intollerant view on the world, expecting you to scuttle away back under that rock from which you crawled, back you bounce.

But they do say "no sense, no feeling".

What would the world be like without without people like you who demand that the law be obeyed at all times, yet say that petty theft is acceptable and tolerable - but only because he's done it himself.

No if you want to tell us something like this:
then we'd view your tripe in a different light. It would however appear that your views are bourne of some other event or possibly even an abnormality which gives you this abundance of hypocracy.

And there's me, feeding the troll again

Bloody hell, but I hate Windows sometimes. I was just doing a long reply to basingwerk when the bugger keeled over on me. Hey ho, start again.

I'm not with you here. When I talk about people looking to defeat the things I mean in such a way that payment is avoided altogether, so it will matter very much. I don't condone it as it will obviously be illegal, but anyone who thinks it won't happen is fooling themselves. Look at how many drive uninsured wrecks without VED now - people are going to drive and if you try to price them out, even inadvertantly, they will merely look for ways to drive without paying. Paying for driving by satellite charging and other technical means will simply change the ways in which people evade payment to something more technical than just not bothering. But the overwhelming majority of current VED evaders are still paying fuel duty because very few drive away from the pumps without paying for the fuel. I am sure that satellite charging will result in even more illegal driving than we have now since I expect it to be both more tempting to avoid due to the cost and probably easier to avoid than fuel duty is. Personally I'm going to avoid it legally by living elsewhere.

I'm not sure what you mean by bariiers coming down if the money doesn't flow. If you're saying the shit will hit the fan in a big way then I'd agree. I suspect you're on about something else though.


Not by me. I appreciate you keeping my blood pressure up and preventing me falling into the complacency trap. However, I would like you to clarify where you stand on this. On many occasions you've stated that you are making predictions in your posts, which neatly avoids you having to state whether you oppose or support satellite charging. Out of curiosity I'd like to know where you personally stand. If you support satellite charging over the virtually 100% effective fuel duty charging I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. You know my position - that satellite road charging offers no advantages in raising motoring revenue over fuel duty and will not be anything like as effective or cheap to run. Will you speak in favour of satellite charging?


Okay, that sounds like you are in favour, but that's what I was talking about when I said I didn't want to go sounding like a conspiracy theorist . To take those points in order...

"Track/trace/monitor" - for what purpose? In what is nominally a free country this is pretty offensive. I'm sure we'll have the anti-terrorist argument lobbed in by El Presidente Blair but I'm with Benjamin Franklin on that sort of thing.

"Tax/insure/toll" - I've already covered this. Fuel duty already performs this function and is so close to 100% effective as makes no difference.

"Inform/route" - TrafficMaster? Bulletins on the radio? Road side displays? We have plenty already and really don't need anything else.
"Entertain" - Would this having a flutter at Ladbrookes on how long it'll take before it works properly and how long it'll be before it breaks down again?

"Identify/control/schedule" - sounds synonymous with track/trace/monitor to me.

Basically satellite charging will give us little or nothing that we don't already have for a damn sight more than we already pay, and risks taking away liberties we currently take for granted.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Relax people, satellite charging isn't going to be effective in the slightest.

Even if the "machine" does find the funds to implement it, I'm sure your local computer hacker will be more than happy to have a "chat" with the black box in your car for the right amount of beer tokens

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I'll take the bits that make sense and reply, but I'll have to dump the other stuff because my patience is almost through. We have found out that we are all hypocrites and that hypocrisy is a good and necessary thing for the world to work. We all know, unless we are bad to the bone, that the important thing is to try to act in a moral way. Isn’t it? I’m working on it by avoiding both pen theft and speeding.

I think that disposes of your main points, but thanks for giving me the chance to show that hypocrisy is sometimes a good thing – if people aren’t around to present these arguments (in whatever form), you may have blundered on under the impression that some people must be perfectly coherent, past and present, before they can have an opinion. Hopefully, you won’t fall into that trap again.

_________________
I stole this .sig

NO!

I will resist.

I will not feed the Troll

Seconds out, start of round 3 <DONG>

Oh, I see that PaulF is still sitting on his stool in the corner, muttering to himself about trolls! This could this be a sign that he has given in – after all, his simple complaint, hypocrisy, turns out to be an inevitable part of the human condition, so he has nothing to complain about after all! Fair enough, PaulF! Have a cup of tea, and I’ll deal with r11co, who was still in the ring last time I checked.



You are doing your sophistry now. Judging by the intolerant nature of his posts, it is obvious to anyone that PaulF really hates me for my intolerance of speeders – just look back and check how spiteful and full of bile he is! You can’t hate someone like that and claim to be tolerant, r11co! Can you?

Now, repeat after me - a hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. This means that PaulF, who hates me because I hate speeders, must be a hypocrite. That is because he hates me for being intolerant of a certain group (speeders), while he himself is intolerant of another group (camera supporters). Hm… your must try harder, r11co!



I was throwing strawberries to donkeys, but now I realise that you could see the paradox, JT!

_________________
I stole this .sig