[Gllug] [OT] Times Article on ABD was Fighting a virus

[Christopher Hunter]

On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 00:24 +0000, John G Walker wrote:

> I'm not sure why you think reducing revenue is self-defeating in this
> case. The purpose of the congestion charge is to reduce pollution in
> central London, and this it has done (or so my lungs tell me). It's got
> nothing to do with revenue.

It really IS just a revenue-raising exercise - that it might give
"green" benefits is just a bonus to Ken "I don't like cars" Livingstone.
It's just another way in which Livingstone can pursue his personal
vendetta against motorists.  

That a misguided government had passed a Bill that appeared to give him
the legal method for applying this charge was another bonus - if pushed
he could apportion blame elsewhere (and he does).  However, it appears
that the congestion charge as currently administered and applied is not
legal - it's being tested in court at the moment.

The nature of my job means that I sometimes have to venture into Ken's
zone, and my company is employed by TfL to maintain traffic signals, but
we're still not exempt from the charge - indeed Serco have to pay the
charge to maintain the Congestion Charge cameras!  It's utterly potty!

And before you ask - yes.  The traffic lights WERE manipulated to worsen
congestion.  Also, they've been altered to favour pedestrians more, but
this has proved to be counter-productive, with ever-increasing injuries
and deaths of pedestrians on controlled crossings - usually flattened by
frustrated drivers.

Regards

Chris


-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug