By Andy McCue, 10 June 2005 15:15
NEWS The silicon.com virtual mailbag has been overflowing with irate reader comments this week in response to Transport Secretary Alistair Darling's announcement that the government plans to introduce a pay-as-you-drive system of road tax using satellite tracking technology.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the government's plans have not been met with much approval from silicon.com readers for a variety of reasons ranging from it being another tax on motorists and Big Brother car tracking, to a fear it will lead to "myopic pensioners" hogging the roads.
Bob Brennan, an IT consultant from Cambridge, said: "We're already paying per mile for using the roads - it's called 'petrol tax'. It's low tech, it works, it's way more than people can afford, and it does bugger all to relieve congestion."
The knackered state of much of the UK's public transport system was also a thorny issue in Darling's plan to force more motorists off the road and onto trains and buses.
John Beardon, and IT company director in Somerset, said: "People drive out of necessity. Instead of involving themselves in what would probably become the biggest tech farce on the planet, [the government should] throw the money at a public transport service that is cheap and available to everyone - not the antiquated, inefficient, joke of a system that we put up with at the moment."
The government's faith in the technology also came in for a flaming, with many readers suggesting that people will soon find a way to get round the system.
Roger Huffadine, a CTO in Worcester, said: "It is well known that low level local interference disrupts the positioning algorithms of GPS. There will also be a very interesting market for 'spoof' boxes, which send radio frequency signals pretending to be satellites, telling the onboard system that you are travelling down a dirt track road in Wales charged at 1p per mile when you are actually on a high cost route in a city centre charged at £1 per mile."
Some people - who are probably at this very minute making tinfoil hats to stop the government monitoring their thoughts - saw something more sinister in the plans.
One reader said: "Hmmm RFID tags so that in 2010 stores will be able to tell that I have just walked into their branch in City B wearing underwear that I bought on their store card five years ago from their branch in City A; vehicle tracking so that the government can tell not only how I drove from A to B but also which roads I used and what speed I travelled at... and people are worrying about being asked to carry an ID card."
A web application developer from Yorkshire predicted that speeding fines and penalty points under the tracking scheme will clear the roads of "all but the most myopic of pensioners".
But the last word has to go to a reader called Richard, whose despair probably summed up what many readers felt.
"Oh god, it is all going to go horribly wrong. I just know it," he said.
Comments
There are 44 comments. Join the discussion
1. Russ Michaels
I find this pay as you go road tax to be a ridiculous idea.
It would force people to use public transport, which I guess is the idea but this will make life more difficult for a lot of people.
Have you ever tried to get the train to and from work during peak periods, it’s a nightmare. The trains are always so packed you are squashed in like sardines and often you cannot get on the train at all, and have to wait for 2 or 3 trains until you can get on.
The result of which is that you are late for work, and late getting home and it can easily add a couple of extra hours to your daily travel.
So if it's like that now, what would it be like if even more people were forced to use public transport?
And what about those of us with children and babies, who have to transport pushchairs, carry cots, nappies, change mats and all the other essentials you need when being away from home. How do you take this lot on public transport?
Has anyone actually thought this through at all, it certainly doesn’t seem like it.
2. anonymous
Given the governments spectacular successes in previous large scale "state of the art" IT systems delivery projects why should we be at all concerned that it could all go wrong? We know three things - It will cost 10 times more than budgeted for, It will deliver 1/10th of the original design, and will take 4 times the projected time to (semi) complete.
3. anonymous
If we dont like it we can make a stand and get a change in Government.. No wait we voted in this Government AGAIN.. You all rant and rave about how hard done by you are.. but when its time to speak up and make your difference you all crawl back into your little caves.
Obviously this toll driving is upsetting some people if you dont like it speak up!! lobby your MPs; have a rally, dont post on here with your utopian wannabe lifestyles. The world is changing.. Information security, cyber terrorism and plain old crazy religous freaks are making this place an unsafe world.
What your are not being told is that this car tracking should eliminate vehicle crime, which should mean cheaper insurance cost and car prices.
You have to accept that in a world of bits and bauds.. information is key! and the control of that information is the holy grail of any UTOPIAN society.
Granted this is all coming from the paranoid american trigger happy generation.
We are through the looking glass people.. Enemy of the State is closer to the truth than you know.
We can make a difference, but what kind of world do you want to live in..
Freedom comes at a price.. without security there is no freedom.
4. Fergus McQuire
This Labour government needs to learn three words in relation to all taxation issues (which is what road pricing will inevitably become) : simplify, simplify, simplify. Their plans show just the opposite.
5. Justin Wheatley
Vote with your feet.
If this nonsense comes into reality I will do the only thing possible to protect myself. LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
I suspect that I won't be the only one, and although the roads may be quieter as a result it may only be because our economy will no longer support the purchase of oil.
6. anonymous
It's bad for all the reasons stated here. But does any actually think that the proposed reduction in fuel duty will actually be passed onto comsumers. If anyone think's we're going to see fuel at 10p a litre when duty is removed think again. That money will a go straight into the oil companies' pockets.
7. Russell Sheffield
Bizarre announcement this....I thought they had already started to implement it. Has anyone noticed the amount of Inductuctive loops being placed in the roads (a drawn black outline of a rectangle cut into the road surface) recently? Take a look - they are everywhere at set distances. Now if only each vehicle had a way of passing it's info to these loops as they passed over them they would'nt need GATSO, satellites or any other tracking method. It would just be like scanning a tin of beans....
8. Jim Wilson
Road pricing will be a disaster for everyone in the UK. It will be the final straw for many of us who are able join the exodus to leave this country for good. Not only will it cost a fortune every time we drive our cars, but what worries me more than that is the total loss of any civil liberties we have left.
The governments’ computers will know the exact location and speed of every car anywhere in the UK at all times 24 hours a day - every day. Speed cameras will be obsolete, they won’t be required anymore. Every time, anywhere, a cars goes over the speed limit the computers will know and will be able to issue a fine. The days of having a quick ‘squirt’ on a quiet back road or even just driving harmlessly at 40mph in a 30mph zone in the early hours will be over. All of us will be tracked at all times by the government.
The plus side? Well, the police won’t have to ask Crimewatch viewers to look for a ‘blue saloon car’ seen near the scene of a crime. The Road Pricing computers will know where all cars in the UK are or were at any given time.
This isn’t additional technology; it is part and parcel of the GPS technology that will be used for road pricing. All this information will be there if the government care to use it, and I am sure they will.
The trouble is the temptation to use this technology to the full to control ordinary law abiding citizens and rigidly enforce minor regulations will prove too much for the government and the police to resist.
I really hope the government don’t get away with it. This is frightening.
9. Peter H Busen
The current Pay-as-you drive road tax: is the fuel tax we pay on petrol and diesel fuel. This system has an effective and cheap revenue delivery service via oil companies to the government. There are no technological and very few practical problems with this tried and tested system. Why change? As always the problem is political, it is now political suicide to increase fuel tax significantly, given the fuel tax lobby.
The answer is to introduce a new “technical” solution which has none of the previous systems attributes namely: costly, unproven, subject to abuse, no limitation to increased charges. This change is not motivated to manage congestion, it is motivated to ensure increased tax revenues from the motorist.
10. David Boulding
The cost of creating satellite tracking for charging in congestion areas reminds me of the millions the US spent on developing a pen that would work in space. The Russians just used a pencil. Lord preserve us from these idiots.
11. Mark Hughes
I think it's absolutely brilliant. It has to be the most suicidal plan any government has ever come up with - even better than poll tax - and dispels any doubts about the possibility of Labour getting back in next time.
12. Iain Benger-Stevenson
How will they cater for foreign-registers cars, which do not have the equipment installed?
I shudder to think what we shall have to pay to get these unwanted boxes fitted.
13. Gary Davis
Even at best, isn't it just going to move the busy periods ("rush hours") earlier or later as people try to avoid the most expensive periods, but still get to work in the towns and cities? The only people that can probably change schedules to suit would be delivery drivers, but even then, if delivering stock to a shop, the shop needs to be open.
14. Tony Nicholson
Yet another crackpot scheme for scamming the motorist. I beleive we currently pay about 13p/mile for an average 10k per year for the tax on petrol and roadfund. why not have a registration fee for all new cars and take the tax off petrol and toll all motorways. this I beleive is what other countrys do, including Blairs friends in the USA.and also a lot of our so called partners in Europe.This would also create a larg workforce pool,that way you catch everyone including the current day dodgers. if we couple this with an insurance windscreen disk. We may even catch some of the thousands of none insured drivers who put all our lifes at risk.
15. David West
My company is in the business of travelling to customers sites for repairs and maintenance to Refrigeration plant operated by major supermarkets. Assuming the new scheme replaces the fuel tax and our travel expenses do not increase I see only one problem with this system. What is to stop unscrupulous people removing the tracking box and wiring it to a 12V battery in the garage (almost any plumber, mechanic, electrician, farmer, etc could do that). The system will then believe the vehicle isn't moving. Considering the system will need to be a retrofit to most vehicles there is no way for the system to know it is actually in a vehicle. Therefore TOTALLY USELESS!!!
16. anonymous
The poll tax riots were nothing compared to what I would expect if they wen't ahead with this insane scheme - which is probably nothing than more than a scare tactic to make the next round of fuel price hikes seem like a relief.
As for satellite tracking, you can buy a kit for a small EMP device for about £80 on the internet that should take care of the little black box.
17. anonymous
I live and work in adjacent counties, separated by a 'small' natural obstacle:The Thames. To reach my workplace, using public transport, in time to meet my contractural terms (get to work on time)would entail 3 train and 2 bus journeys. I estimate that I would have to leave home at 05:30, maybe arriving back at 20:30 assuming of course that all the connections (none of which actually coincide)happen. My other option, unsurprisingly, is to drive. My route forces me to use the A2/M25/A13 presumably all of which will be classified as 'top price p/mile' (?) under this ludicrous scheme. The £10 p/week I contribute to the appalling bottleneck called 'Le Crossing' (isn't that paid for several times over now ?)is just an extra twist of the knife! Oh Mr Darling - No !
18. Tony T
Transport Minister. I am dumbfounded as to how the idea was leaked to the public. (I can't believe any sain goverment would actually listen to this moron so I presume it was leaked) If it wasnt leaked then who the hell have we voted in? The STUPID Party.
Public transport. That's the answer then thousands of busses, trams and trains rolling about empty for 90% of the day. That is until you need to commuter to and from work when you will be packed in like sardines. Wow what planning FANTASTIC.
19. James Grant
If the government was indeed serious about reducing traffic congestion, and/or abolishing road tax, then there are cheaper alternative ways. I have been running a website called www.abolishroadtax.com which states that for 7.25p a litre, we can indeed scrap road tax. This figure can be reduced further by the nature that all foreigners will now contribute towards the upkeep of our road network!
20. godric beresford-jones
the traffic management nightmare
hi
no one seems to have got the underlying message here... there are simply too many people in certain areas of the country... full stop.
why oh why doesn't anyone get this message... there arn't enought houses or water or drainage or hostipals or schools let alone road space for us all... yet the answer is always build more and make it worse.
if the circuit keeps blowing a fuse... maybe there is just too much plugged in.
someone should work out an acceptable population per hectar or it will be the end of part one... a kind of v=ir for the planet.
oh.. and in 10 years time, with a hydrogen economy, polution will not be the problem... the name of the game is resourses.
thanks
godric bj
21. anonymous
What happens if I long term lease my car from a company in Eire/Jersey/Mann/France.
How do they propose to catch such vehicles
22. Roger Perrin
The argument goes that road charging will reduce traffic by 30% and that the 70% will get to their destination with greater safety and speed and it'll make the environment cleaner!
If road charging does reduce traffic by 30% what happens to the 30%? Darling Darling is happy that the poorer amongst us will have to walk, get cold and wet, stand in queues for buses that don't arrive, pay amazing amounts for trains that don't run on time and don't provide seating and generally take all day to get to somewhere that a car can get to in 30 minutes, even in heavy congestion.
Apparently it’s not intended that road charging should be a revenue raising measure! I can't see the government giving up the tax that 30% of drivers will no longer pay if they are not driving! I assume the 70% will get a roughly 50% increase in costs to make up the numbers and cover the cost of the technology that will be used. So this stuff about not increasing costs is likely to be another lie.
I like the idea of a cleaner environment. So why are the public authorities allowing municipal vehicles onto our streets that belch clouds of black smoke? Buses, dustcarts, taxis and trucks seem to be the main culprits, not cars. What sort of leadership is that? Why can't goods be shifted by train rather than the trucks that clog both motorways and city centres. It’s only happening because freight trains are more costly than road transport which is within the ambit of government to put right. In fact I'm not really against congestion as it’s of my own free will that I join it and that freedom belongs to us all. Clear roads that only the wealthy and privileged state bureaucrats can ride on is not my idea of the right way forward.
Anyway, who in their right mind wants to live in a police state where the so called democratically elected government with only 25% of the vote is able to spy into and manipulate everyone's life with such precision and in such a growing number of ways? What's happened to our desire for freedom when we seem so willing to give it up and allow an increasingly dictatorial state to tell us what to do without democratic authority?
Let's all go to the Falklands, declare independence and start again! Actually not all, let's leave the cotton wool manufacturers and career politicians behind! Or even better let’s send them there!
23. Ian Livermore
You are all looking at the cost and the stealth taxation associate with it but missing the fact that a Sat Nav system which calculates the distances travelled by all of us will tel the government and anyone else exactly where we are and near enough what we are doing 24 hours a day. ID Cards are nothing compared to this!
24. Dr John L Dimmock
Let us stop messing around; we all know we have to pay for the use of our roads one way or another and suggest that we copy the principle employed by many other countries
Why not pay a percentage of tax and insurance on each litre of fuel we buy and let the oil companies forward this income to the treasury
By adopting this method, every vehicle on the road will be insured and contributing by default to the cost of road maintenance relative to the mileage and the horsepower employed
Busses and Lorries which are without doubt the heaviest road users will pay far more that the once a week traveller who uses a Mini Car or is this solution to simple?
25. Simon Jefferson
Mr Darling is a crackpot!!
Well this is a way for the Government to employ the people it is making redundant from the Inland Revenue/Customs and excise. This scheme is going to employ so many people to issue letters, chase payments etc.
What about the self-employed, they would have to increase their charges or go out of business.
How much are the damned boxes they'll have to fit to the car cost?
The extreme is as they do in Japan, allow different cars on the road on different days.
Public transport is crap, expensive and unreliable. A double-decker bus invariable only travels 20mph in a 40mph zone and 40mph in a 60mph zone.
To relieve a lot of congestion HGVs should only be allowed on the road between 8pm and 6am and 11am and 3pm and on motorways they can only travel on the inside lane so that we don't get HGVs overtaking HGVs creating lines of traffic behind them.
The M40 bus lane is a waste of space and increases congestion. Why not allow drivers, should they so wish, to purchase a special badge or similar that allows them to travel in this lane?
26. Brian Burkill
Erm,
If I am obliged to not use my car and am forced onto the public transport system, How would I manage to get three Pcs, a printer, keyboards, and all ancilliaries and cables on the back of a London Bus during rush hour?
27. anonymous
Has the government no concept of "transaction costs"? - although the current system is far from perfect (and too expensive), the collection cost and implementation cost for a sat-nav based systems can only be huge. About time ministers bit the biscuit and lived in the real world.
28. mou
Right now we operate a pay as you go system, whereby you pay for what petrol you get and you know where you stand. If you want the equivilant of a contract, you pay by credit card. Under the suggested scheme, its like an enforced contract deal. The potential lies that toward the end of the month/quarter/year, you may not be able to take my car out in fear of how high your tax bill would be - would there be a way of checking how much you'd spent?!
And once the tracking system is in place theres no turning back. We surrender ourselves to the fact that the goverment WILL be able to track our cars whenever they like. Petrol to start, but whats stopping speeding fines beig issued on the basis of GPS tracking? No more parking on double yellows while you just pop into the bank (im sure everyones been there) - Big Brother will be watching.
I dont think our current government is malicious enough to be thinking as far ahead as constant tracking of people, but once the technology is in place, whats stopping a future government taking it a step further? You couldnt have accused the Germans of knowing what was to come when they voted in Hitler...
29. jeff bond
TAX ON ROAD / VEHICLE USE.
NET TAX REVENUE
It has been said that the taxation system under consideration is not intended to raise more tax revenue than the present system.
Presumably such statement refers to “net” tax revenue.
It seems to me that there are 2 fundamental flaws in this proposition.
1. The net tax receipts should be increased to cover the deficit created by those road users who fail to pay their Road Fund Licence.
2. The Gross tax paid by users would rise to cover the cost of the setting up and ongoing running of a new high tech system.
TAX PAYMENT DEFAULT
The present regime suffers from the failure of many motorists to pay for a Road Fund Licence.
The proposed system would require that motorists be billed for their road use.
The level of default would continue to prevail and may well increase – not only would existing “tax dodgers” be likely defaulters, but hitherto contributors to the Road Fund Licence may find themselves unable to pay if the level of tax were to rise.
TAX EVASION
It has been established that as technology develops so too do the means to circumvent its use.
The proposed system intends to track vehicle use via an in vehicle device which is satellite monitored.
It does not need much imagination to conclude that enterprising tax dodging individuals will quickly develop signal blocking mechanisms [from hi tec electronics to the simple lump of lead shielding] , methods of recoding the device so that it registers a different vehicle or the simple theft and use of someone elses device.
TRANSITION TIME AND COST
Who is expected to pay for the in vehicle device and installation.
How can 100% installation be achieved – particularly is there is an “anti “ movement/
The time involved in this operation would be substantial.
NEGATIVE IMPACTS
We are all aware of those sad cases of the elderly who have suffered ill health and even death because of a fear of turning on their heating and incurring cost.
Are we not likely to experience a similar fear of venturing out in the car?
There is already a considerable cost to the motorist in using road and vehicle -- any addition to this would constitute a tax on movement and thereby a limitation on the freedom of the individual.
Any increase in cost would drive further division between the “rich “ and the “poor”– since the same cost structure would apply equally to the wealthy driving a £50,000 Mercedes and the more humble user of a second hand £5,000 Ford.
Any increase in road use taxation would increase the cost of transportation – we would then expect to see :
Increase in the cost of goods in the shops.
Increase in the price of stamps.
Increase in the cost of taxis.
Decrease in the use of taxis.
Business failure of taxi firms.
Increase in the cost of home delivery services.
Cessation of meals on wheels services.
Reduction in the voluntary services involving vehicular use.
This just scratches the surface.
Parents may cut back in taking children to clubs, brownies , guides , etc resulting in either less activty for children or the children walking or using public transport and being put at risk.
Deter older , low / fixed income people from going out to coffee mornings /social events.
Reduce family visits to older relatives.
Reduce offers to shop for the elderly at out of town supermarkets.
Put mobile therapists, hairdressers, chiropodists etc out of business - reducing care for the elderly.
Some people may have to give up work or find work nearer home is travel costs make it pointless to go to work.
Discouragement of trips to country for walking and other healthy pursuits, to swimming pools or gyms – in order to save money – Government should be seeking to promote such activity not add to the cost of pursuing it.
Increased cost to working mums if the trip to the creche is not on the way to work.
Space created [ in theory ] on currently heavily congested roads could be
30. Paul Holt
How about organising a day where everybody in the country tries to get to work using public transport. Maybe that would show the government that in a lot of areas there is no alternative to a vehicle.
How are companies that need to have people on the roads going to manage.
Paul
31. Salvador Minguijon
The reality is that the problem of the traffic is madness. The social cost in accidents, especially personal damages, infrastructures, lost of quality of life in the cities, lost of time, contamination, etc is enormous, it doesn't stop to grow and it is moral and economically untenable.
There is basic necessity of mobility that indeed has to be supported by the State, but the State also has to try to avoid an irrational use of the vehicle that only is motivated by bigger comfort, and that at the moment we all paying it with our taxes.
To discriminates these different uses is complex. Maybe more than Mr. Darling imagines.
There are many interests in game around the industry of the automobile, not alone direct but also for example in the real estate sector or the big commercial areas, etc, that will put Mr. Darling the things very difficult.
It is a clearly unpopular proposal, and it would also generate a demand of public transport services very difficult to satisfy.
I believe that this project can end the political life of the Mr. Darling. But I also believe that his proposal is valiant and honest and he faces a problem that the politicians have always preferred to ignore.
We have to make something, because this crazy career doesn't take us anywhere.
32. Paul
Be heard at pledgebank.com sign the 10,000 person petition to say no to the governments ridiculous plans...
33. Jon Catt
Paranoid...
Taxes aside for a moment.
Why oh why do so many people freak out about the government 'knowing' what they're doing 24hours a day - government undoubtedly has better things to do, and does not have the resources to track and personally monitor each and every one of us.
The guy who's concerned that they'll know which roads he was driving on, and at what speed, needs to slow down, he's probably an executive officer somewhere, drives a 'beemer' and feels he should be allowed to show the world what an excellent driver he is at high speed. If you're breaking the law you'll get busted, if this tracking system ensures that the mentality of "if no-one sees me do it, it's ok" type of people is changed to "I'd just better not do it" then it can only be a good thing.
It's just one example of law enforcement which makes the world safer - we also have a few hundred thousand other laws, some of which may benefit if they are alerted automatically by ID card systems/car tracking systems etc, etc. Honestly, we should all be tagged at birth, and monitored automatically our entire lives - we can't all be trusted, it's the plain, and rather sad, truth.
By the way, I really like the idea (see further up the comments) where the cost of petrol includes car insurance. Downside to that is when we begin to get electric cars on the road too, or a hybrid, will the government charge us a tax through Scottish Hydro Electric? probably
34. Simon
I have a simple idea to deal with the congestion problem - really simple and would be very effective. It would dramatically slash crime, and reverse rural decline.
Simple - ban motor vehicles !
People will be legally required to walk to work - if work is too far to walk, they either change jobs or change house !
Food may be carried by cart, pulled by only one horse.
Crime would be slashed as everyone would know everyone else in the village, outsiders would be instantly known about. The policeman on his cycle could easily catch any miscreants who would be on foot - anyone found using a car would be shot on sight.
OK, we'd have to give up a few things - no foreign foods from the supermarket, no hospitals and fancy medical facilities, no internet as it simply wouldn't be practical to deliver the infrastructure without motor vehicles - BT bloke on pushbike with a telegraph pole over his shoulder ? But then there'd be no electrickery either.
Is this the utopia the current shower are wanting - except for the elite who's still be allowed their two jags !
35. Guy Reynolds
I have just been stuck in a 15 minute traffic jam caused by local authority vehicle retrieving a car from a parking bay, presumably the owner had not paid their parking fees. I can just see proposed the Pay-as-you-go road tax system charging me a peak fee due to the congestion.
What then follows is the government deliberately putting slow moving vehicles on roads to cause conjestion to increase tax revenue, so that they meet their targets, not that such targets are ever going to be set. Just like targets for traffic wardens issuing parking tickets.
36. anonymous
Pay as you drive will give the Govt the keys to our wallets anytime, anywhere. I suspect there is political reluctance to raise road tax except at the budget statement. With road pricing, there will be confusing tariffs constantly juggled to maximise revenue, not reduce congestion, just like London's congestion charging, the parking fees, fines and deployment of wardens are. It's about taxation, not congestion.
I would like to propose a vehicle strike in London. If nobody drove in London for a week, then we'll see how much difference cars, vans and lorries make to the economy and vital services and the councils will be crying out for the lost revenue.
37. Sandra Vale
I can't seem to get the logic of road charging. The only way the government will get people to drive less is to either improve public transport or increase the costs of driving substantially.
Don't get me started on public transport - that is just a joke. Apart from this, how can road charging possibly be revenue neutral if it is to reduce the use of our roads.
My conclusion is that this will all be another tax by the government that we will end up paying
38. David power
It's only one short step from charging according to the road you are using to automatically limiting your speed according to the speed limit for that road!!!
39. Bruce
My wife is a Teacher. She drives 20 miles to work and twenty miles back each day. Most of this is Motorway driving. I have to drive 25 miles to work and 25 miles back each day on the motorway. Even at £1 per mile. that would be a WEEKLY total of £450.00. Would it actually be worth our while to work? And what about people in poorly paid jobs who still have to travel? Are these Government clowns who come up with these schemes really in touch with the real world? or is it a cunning ploy to get motorists to accept a very hefty increase in road duty or petrol taxation in preference to a mileage charge scheme which quite frankly strikes me as an outright act of Piracy. I would also like to point out to Mr. Darling and his Government cohorts, that you can still be HUNG for piracy in this Country!!!. If you want to reduce congestion, build more and bigger roads!
40. anonymous
I Agree with another persons point of view. "I would pay the tax only once... on the way to the airport to emigrate!"
41. anonymous
What's next will they be putting meters on our heads and charging us for the air we breathe?
42. Paul Koan
No government would instigate such a scheme simply to more effectively tax road use.
So what is the motivation? Awarding the contract to build the thing will gain some favour with big.corp I guess.
Alternatively, it is another part of the surveillence society jigsaw.
I would guess the latter is more likely the driving force, and the former an investment in future "donations" as a side benefit.
43. BK
I still think EVERYBODY should pay "road tax". Even if you do not drive, how do you suppose those shops fill up with stock? Star Trek Transporter? Nope, it came on a lorry. So, you ARE a road user, by proxy. Charge EVERYBODY, use the money to make a REAL Public Transport infrastructure. Ask anybody who has actually travelled on a bus or train lately what a marvel it was.
44. Steve
If it ain't broke, don't fix it !