Tracking Devices On Cars

Recently, I have heard that the government has proposed to put tracking devices on all cars, at the owners cost. This will record whether you have been speeding or not, where you have been going (obviously) etc.. But; don't take this for gospel, I think it is propbably made up. Check out this website and see what you think.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/

Wouldn't surprise me at all. It acheives two things for the government:
- It gives them another way to make money.
- It gives them another way to spy on the public.

I am generally of the belief that Government by its very nature is corrupt, but I think that the Labour Government are trying to take it as far as possible by turning the UK into a Big Brother Society.

Whatever happened to Freedom?

As the song goes, "Freedom, yeah right"

The Government wants to put tracking devices on cars so that the time and the type of road used can be monitored from a satellite. The tax paid by motorists at the moment could be abolished and replaced by a system of charging that would fit the roads they used and the times they used them. So, someone who only used their car once a week on minor roads in off-peak times would pay less. Wasteful road use could be punished to the benefit of all road users and the environment.

Surely then, taxing fuels, particularly those that pollute more, would be a better option? Why track people 'for the sake of the environment' when you can just tax them for the amount of fuel they burn? I agree that car tax is unfair and should be scrapped, but if you want to tax people for pollution, then why not tax the amount and type of fuel that they use? That way, those that pollute more, pay more.

That's a common misconception. Taxing fuel does not punish those who pollute most, nor does it help with congestion. Those that drive in the city, alone in a large car and for short journeys that could be walked or cycled pollute most yet their fuel tax would increase the same percentage as every other driver. There is no differentiation. If congestion is the problem then these factors need to be taken into account as do whether the trip is taken in peak hours, whether it is taken on particularly busy roads when an alternative is available and whether there was a cycle path, bus route or train ride that could have been taken instead. Road pricing is a much more accurate way of punishing behaviour that is bad for society and encouraging that which is good. When it comes to considerations of civil liberties, the argument always goes that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about. I can't see the benefit that a government would find in a conpiracy as large as the one you seem to be suggesting. Why would they care if I was driving to Tesco? And if I was smuggling drugs or had just comitted a hit-and-run, perhaps it's a good thing that they'd be able to track my car.

I agree that it does nothing to address congestion, but I don't see the logic in your argument that it does not punish those who pollute most. Surely the type and quantity of fuel burned is a good indicator of how much pollution is produced? Isn't the amount of fuel burned roughly proportional to the pollution produced, if the type of fuel is the same? For different fuels, you just need to adjust tax so that those that pollute more (eg Petrol) cost more than those that pollute less (eg Biodiesel).

What factors other than this affect pollution?

Those that drive will have to pay for fuel whereas those that cycle or walk won't. Therefore, the polluter is paying more.

I'll admit that I wasn't really thinking of congestion, but congestion charging systems such as the one in use in London seem to be effective in reducing this problem.

As for public transport, I try to use it whenever possible but the problem is that in many places it is sparse, expensive and difficult to get to where you want to go, so people are in the habit of using their cars for all journeys, and don't even consider using public transport when they could. I think that this is the underlying problem. Also, different forms of public transport are sometimes not well integrated, making journeys requiring more than one form a nightmare!

However, in some places (I'll use London again as an example), public transport is heavily used, regular, and fully integrated so that transfering from, eg, Underground to Bus is quick and easy. Also, schemes like the Oyster card make it convenient and speed things up.
If public transport in most of the rest of the country was anywhere near as good as in London, then more people would probably use it.

There's something called privacy. What I decide to do and where I go is my business, as long as it affects no-one else. My concern is that if this is allowed, then what will be next? Wire taps on all telephone lines? Cameras in every room of your home? Mandatory tracking implants? Would you be happy with this? I know that I'm taking extreme examples, but as the saying goes: 'Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.' I'm sure that Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR began with small-scale surveillance supported by the general public, but look at how they turned out!

Monitoring public opinion and activity, identifying those that threaten their power and interests, and silencing them. I may sound paranoid, but I believe that it is the duty of the public to keep the government in check. Otherwise, they can do whatever they like. People who have power are likely to use it for their own ends at some point. Power Corrupts. That's why I'm always suspicious of anyone in power, and governments are just about the most powerful organisations around.

They wouldn't. But say, for example, that you were attending meetings of a Socialist movement which is peaceful and democratic, but opposed to the current government's political beliefs (eg increasingly free market economics). They could find out who is going to these meetings, attempt to disrupt them, or make things difficult for those who attend. Again, I may sound paranoid, and maybe this isn't very likely at the moment, but if governments are given progressively more power, when will it end?

Good point. Hadn't thought about it. However, taking drug smugglers as an example, organised crime will most likely find ways around this technology, for example, they may find a way to disable, remove or disguise the signal, so it may not be of much use here.

I can't think of an argument against the hit-and-run point, though, so I'll concede that one.

This post has been edited by Stoned_Prof on Feb 19 2007, 06:19 PM