Electric vehicle owners to be charged extra to park in London Labour-run council
tinyurl.com/yswxl79w
|
It doesn't quite spell it out as far as I can see, but I think they are bringing EVs into line with ICE cars, which to me (as an EV driver) doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Therein lies the problem of giving people something cheaper than it ought to be - when the increase finally comes, it looks huge.
Here in Wokingham, car park charges have gone up by a large percentage -= maybe 100%, I don't use them so I don't know. But people are up in arms about it. What they don't consider is that the last time the rates were reviewed was something like 2019, and they didn't increase then they've been at the same rate for more than 5 years - and considerably cheaper than say , nearby Reading.
The squeeze is on all councils big time and they all need to raise more money where they can.
|
It was always inevitable that EVs would eventually need to pay their way. Parking is a minor expense.
They have had an easy ride thus far as part of the policy of encouraging their sale.
It is just a matter of time before a way will be found to tax them to recover some, all or more than the government currently get through fuel duties etc.
|
My "suggestion" woyld be every car regardless of fuel should pay the same rate eg. £500-1000/yr depending how much you want to suppress ownership.
The "eco" cost of burning stuff can then be factored into fuel duties.
All cars have an environmental cost - even one sitting idle outside a house all year used a ton of energy to make.
|
|
The answer HM gov will come up with (and lets face it, the fairest). is road use pricing. Its rapidly becoming a practical enforcement proposition.
|
|
Road-pricing might be the fairest solution but the infrastructure and running costs are the problem. That's why Lygonos' suggestion might be easier. Either way, some sort of an adjustment for rural drivers who have no alternative to a car may be politically necessary?
|
>> Road-pricing might be the fairest solution but the infrastructure and running costs are the problem.
All the newer cars will be able to self report. No need for any extra infrastructure, apart from software for billing. They could even make the manufacturers do the billing.
|
>> All the newer cars will be able to self report. No need for any extra
>> infrastructure, apart from software for billing. They could even make the manufacturers do the billing.
Could you explain exactly how they would “self report”. Would older cars not be charged? How would wide spread evasion be prevented?
|
>>
>> >> Al
>> Could you explain exactly how they would “self report”. Would older cars not be charged?
>> How would wide spread evasion be prevented?
Your car has a SIM in it, when you buy the car part of the purchase price is an agreement to share your cars data, it gets updates and shares information over the air all the time
|
|
Yea but how doe the car know where and when I travelled. Presumably it would have to have GPS and this info be stored somewhere. Could not the in car equipment be easily interfered with or removed? Presumably every car would have to be retrofitted with the technology.
|
|
Your car has GPS and cell tower triangulation
|
AFAIK new car tracking is frequently fitted but not a legal requirement.
If a decision were made to mandate fitment to new vehicles, I suspect it would be several years before the details could be agreed (GPS accuracy, charging mechanisms, software validation and updates, penalties for tampering, etc etc) and modules fitted.
How this would impact existing vehicles would need to be established.
More likely may be charges for motorway use through number plate recognition. The infrastructure needs and complexity are a small fraction of modules fitted to up to 30m individual vehicles.
This would also limit charges to rural areas (no m/ways) and mean that urban use could effectively be absorbed into a raised VED.
|
Yes it does but most don’t
I can see how it is possible to locate the position of the car so equipped but the car would presumably have to be continuously tracked and the information stored somewhere to provide to the taxation authorities. That seems hugely complex and very open to evasion let alone the issue of privacy.
|
"hugely complex"
The key words. How many times have they tried and failed to create a national database for the NHS, where each healthcare professional could access the same records? I know I worked on an iteration in the 00's and I believe they are no nearer now. The volume of data, and associated calculation of journeys, for traffic monitoring would be immense.
I can see more likelihood of some form of ANPR based system, covering more than motorways but not every road by any means.
|
>> The key words. How many times have they tried and failed to create a national
>> database for the NHS
Because no two authorities could agree on the same system, or even departments within an authority agree. I've experienced this, unfortunately!
|
|
Any cameras would probably go the same way as the now exstinict ULEZ cameras in my area - the main sets up in the village have been removed four times now including one time when all of the traffic lights were attacked - no cameras for almost a month now. On the way to work into Croydon there is a major junction that was regularly attacked with the cameras sprayed with paint - this time they've been hacked off - lights here have been out of action for close to two weeks which is very dangerous as it's right by the tram stop so pedestrians have no way of safely crossing the road and joining traffic have to take a chance. Even the one camera that was on it's own post behind a tree was found and removed in the dead of night!
|
|
I suppose the idiots doing this stuff don't realise that ultimately it's them & the rest of us who will pay for their vandalism.
|
If Google can send me a timeline of where I've been every month based on my smart phone I'm going to say that working out exactly where a car has been ain't that difficult. Lots of young drivers have 'black boxes' for insurance which report the car's wherebouts, speed etc.
There was a court case in the last few years where somebody was 'dobbed in' by his car's records.
In other words it's not much more than a scale up of stuff that's already there. Just let a contract to an other company using Google data.
AIUI the problems in NHS IT are largely down to things like patient confidentiality and the balkanized nature of the service itself, particularly GPs who are independent contractors.
Politically any change to the exisitng system is dynamite becuase, however you spin it, it will turn some current winners into losers and losers to winners.
The first group will be very noisy, include some real hard law/hard case conundrums and be all over the media.
|
|
I concede Zero may have a point above in relation to my previous post, but the challenges with the project I was on were technical difficulties with the volumes, diversity and scope of data, and requirements, and were nothing whatsoever to do with the end users as such.
|
>> I can see more likelihood of some form of ANPR based system, covering more than
>> motorways but not every road by any means.
NHS - You are, and I know you know you are, deliberately being disingenuous. You are aware that the sheer amount of data, types of data, range of data, being consolidated onto a single system from disparate existing systems to a single widely accessible system by hundreds of thousands of different types of user is not the same as road pricing. Where you need.
Identity, location, time, billing method.
If someone gave you that to PM, you wouldn't bat an eyelid.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 2 Dec 23 at 09:46
|
It is possible for the car to monitor when/where it has been, apply a downloaded pricing matrix, and once a month upload a detailed bill to a central collection agency. Fraud, tampering etc may be problematic.
It may even be possible to link the vehicle to a payment method which could disable the vehicle if the payment method selected failed. No different to Paypal which won't process a payment using a date expired payment card.
Arguments over winners, losers, data protection, privacy etc would no doubt follow - but that is true of any change!
|
“Arguments over winners, losers, data protection, privacy etc would no doubt follow - but that is true of any change!”
Even if the government were to decide to go down this path tomorrow it will be years if not decades away before all the political wrangling is sorted, legal privacy cases argued, the necessary techbology devised, and cars fitted with the necessary electronics,”.
Almost certainly not going to happen.
My bet would be an increase in car tax and some sort of motorway tolling.
|
>..the necessary techbology devised, and cars fitted with the necessary electronics,"
The technology is here now and it's relatively cheap. Less than the cost of a tank of fuel. It's the privacy issues that present a problem.
|
|
No privacy issues at all. Its a vehicle. Its captured and monitored by ANPR all day and every day. The VRN is available to anyone with just need. Thats how you get a "fine" at your station, and a fixed penalty by DVLA if its parked on the road with no road tax. Its how you get a NIP through the post at speed cameras.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 3 Dec 23 at 21:03
|
I think we've more than enough to get excited about with the proliferation of CCTV and ANPR in various hands.
One of early occupants of the post of Information Commissioner described the UK as sleepwalking into a surveillance society.
We arrived there long ago.
|
>> I think we've more than enough to get excited about with the proliferation of CCTV
>> and ANPR in various hands.
If is frequently solid evidence to track or convict criminals.
I have no problem with it.
|
|
Tha is not the same as recording exactly the track of your vehicle 24 hours a day.
|
>> Tha is not the same as recording exactly the track of your vehicle 24 hours
>> a day.
The practical outcome is much the same.
And if you have a smartphone you don't even need a vehicle to be tracked 24/7.
|
“The practical outcome is much the same.”
Well it’s not actually. It is not currently a legal requirement that your car journeys are tracked 24 hours a day and a legal requirement that the recording device must not be switched off.
Look I have reservations about the current level of surveillance in our lives. Just because we have a lot, probably too much, already is not a good reason to sign up for even more. Constant compulsory tracking and recording of vehicle movements would raise a huge amount of legal issues and would keep the lawyers busy for years. It won’t happen.
|
>> up for even more. Constant compulsory tracking and recording of vehicle movements would raise a
>> huge amount of legal issues and would keep the lawyers busy for years. It won’t
>> happen.
You have a civil liberty to travel incognito indeed. You dont have that liberty to do it in a motor vehicle, you never have since its inception. The state grants you the privilege, you have to obtain a license to do so from the state, the state can take it away from you, you pay the state a large sum of money for the privilege, the state monitors and enforces your use and abuse of it, it can and does prevent its use in many scenarios.
You want to use your civil liberty to travel incognito, you walk or cycle. It has always been thus.
|
“the state monitors and enforces your use and abuse of it “
When you drive a car you expect that the police will use their powers to ensure that it s being driven within the law an that systems such as ANPR might be used if you are using the vehicle for criminal purpose.
I don’t think that most people would accept that they have signed up for continuous monitoring of their journeys and retention of that data for taxation and possible other uses.
If you don’t think that that is going to lead to a lot of political and legal problems then I believe you are sadly mistaken.
|
>> If you don’t think that that is going to lead to a lot of political
>> and legal problems then I believe you are sadly mistaken.
And I believe you are being sadly naive, no-one bats an eyelid over the privacy issues on the dartford toll. (except when the billing system goes TU)
|
|
well I guess we shall see if the government ever tries to implement such a system though I doubt that they will even try.
|
>> well I guess we shall see if the government ever tries to implement such a
>> system though I doubt that they will even try.
I think it will happen. It'll be set up in a way where, at least at first, the vast majority will be better off. It'll be sold to the public on that basis.
|
|
Be interesting if its any manifesto. I think its too much of a vote loser to go there.
|
>> Be interesting if its any manifesto. I think its too much of a vote loser
>> to go there.
It'll be acceptable once it's the answer to a problem...
|
>> Tha is not the same as recording exactly the track of your vehicle 24 hours
>> a day.
Of course it is, its *exactly* the same. 100% stone cold same same thing
|
I seem to recall a legal case where some guy sued cops or DVLA for not ensuring that paperwork for his traffic infringement was addressed to him personally P&C. He'd been playing away from home and his Mrs opened the letter revealing his deception.
Maybe Bromp can dig through court papers to confirm it isn't some urban legend.
|
|
Any expansion of ANPR cameras to police road-charging on motorways or trunk roads will not go down well with the minority nutters who see it as their public duty to vandalise the ULEZ cameras (or anything that looks vaguely like a ULEZ camera). And ULEZ is intended to clean the air whereas wider ANPR for road charging would be *purely* revenue raising and so even more hated by said nutters.
|
@Kevin,
Don't remember that but it looks interesting albeit no doubt doomed to fail. I'll see if I can find anything. I guess if he was dobbed in for parking outside her place than the wife had a pretty well formed suspicion as to both facts and who specifically he was tupping.
Was about to ask what P&C meant when I twigged Private and Confidential. Would that stop anyone's sig other in their tracks. Other than, perhaps,NHS stuff P&C wouldn't stop Mrs B and I opening mail addressed to the other.
YMMV obvs.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 4 Dec 23 at 08:57
|
The number plate identifies the vehicle owner, not the driver.
If the vehicle commits an infringement and is charged, the owner should only then identify who was driving.
|
>> The number plate identifies the vehicle owner, not the driver.
>>
>> If the vehicle commits an infringement and is charged, the owner should only then identify
>> who was driving.
That's certainly the case for speeding and probably other moving infringements enforced by the police too.
Parking OTOH, when enforced by the Council, generally falls on the keeper. There are though exceptions for (eg) short term hire vehicles and those that have recently changed hands.
We don't know if Kevin's guy was caught parked in breach outside his paramour's home or whether the speed camera's mugshot framed a striking Brunette in the front seat...
|
>> The number plate identifies the vehicle owner, not the driver.
>>
The number plate identifies the registered keeper, who may or may not be the owner.
|
Electric vehicles - extra charges in London - smokie
