Could a pay-per-use road charging scheme powered by vehicle data reporting be viable?

[Bald Rick]

They work via your phone don’t they, so you can just not connect it

That must be pretty if for data protection - I hope they actively get your permission to store that information.

Because one day the State’s politics might diverge enough from yours that they consider you a threat.

1) nope, the car’s computer has its own ‘phone’

2) why would they need to ? It’s tracking the vehicle, not the person

3) it might do. It hasn’t for the last century or so, though, and I’m prepared to bet that it won’t for the next century. Therefore I have no concerns.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The reason why many people use cars, is because the public transport system is quite frankly ****! Especially the buses. The way to get people out of their cars, is to improve public transport, so that it is genuinely usable, and isn't something you have to use because you don't have a car.
Not some draconian unfair taxing system.

The poor state of public transport is not a reason why we should not create a system which will fix the indirect subsidy of private vehicle use which has led to public transport provision in so many areas being cut back.

Once you charge people for car use, they're going to care a lot more that there is public transport. One of the indirect reasons for that is that as public or active transport use in an area increases, the fixed road space that is available will become more free for private vehicles. If we charge the tax on the basis of congestion, then the tax could actually go down as a result of more public transport - e.g. a rail line being (re)opened parallel to a main road.

At the risk of going OT, with the school run examples, I realise not all posters will have personal experience of this, but choice and availability of schools is based on many factors other than physical proximity. In my part of the world, we still have grammar schools and the 11+ exam, so you could live practically next door but still not get in because you don’t meet their admission criteria. There are other societal factors which interplay with all of this and it isn’t necessarily pure free choice.

This is part of a wider societal discussion about the nature of development. The subsidy of car use has allowed Britain to sprawl in such a way that people now need to travel in ways which are only really practical by car. Fixing this subsidy will naturally result in development going in the opposite direction. Houses out in suburban sprawl will be less desirable due to higher travel costs, while those in denser urban areas will become more desirable. With developers going for density, the councils will have to follow suit with where they put schools.

This morning I was reading an academic evaluation of the Lorry Road User Charge scheme that HMRC worked on for several years in the 2000s before the decision was taken not to go ahead with implementation. This was exactly the sort of scheme that is being proposed here, i.e. charging based on real time tracking of roads travelled down and road-level pricing. The idea was that both UK and non-UK lorries would be charged, but to level the playing field UK lorries would be given an equivalent tax rebate - so overseas lorries paid a "fairer share" for road usage given that road tolls are quite rare in the UK but common in mainland Europe.

The study noted that whilst the GPS location tracking element would be fairly straightforward, determining and updating the appropriate pricing for every stretch of road would be rather more complex. It is not a technical matter of populating the database tables, it is agreeing what principles, factors and assumptions are used as inputs to the calculation - and avoiding perverse outcomes. It also noted the potential for displacement, i.e. price-sensitive but not time-sensitive hauliers deliberately taking longer and more circuitous but lower priced routes to their destination and this would increase emissions overall.

The devil is in the detail.

I for one would be very enthusiastic about the legalisation of electric scooters.

As said above, it isn't necessarily a bad thing that less time-sensitive hauliers would take more circuitous routes, especially once we have our shift to electric vehicles. The key is that there is consistency across the road network. One of the specific issues with road tolling is that it can create perverse incentives. It's easy to put in a toll plaza on the brand new motorway or other trunk road you've just built bypassing a medieval town but it's rather harder to toll people for driving through the town. If the toll is set too high, then drivers will just continue to drive through it, unless you start putting in place even more complex measures.

With the tracking information it should be practical to experiment and see what happens. If we notice unfortunate side-effects, then we can tweak the costs to see if they get better.

Also, a factor involved in HGV taxation and regulation gives a good reason why this tracking system needs to cover everything fitted with a number plate. HGVs require special licensing and they are regulated in special ways with tachometers. However, there are some movements which can be done with smaller vehicles which do not get regulated. There's an entire cottage industry of couriers who only ever use large panel vans and they're able to drive much faster across Europe because they don't have to stop. If you just create a new tax for lorries, it'll just shift more and more missions into smaller vans. If you tax all vehicles and then have a smooth tax curve across vehicle classes and usages this won't happen. That's why it's best just to use vehicle mass, possibly divided by tyre contact patch size, in the formula rather than fixed values for different classes of vehicle.

A colleague of mine (more precisely his son) had a bad experience with a black box insurance scheme. His son got several warnings and a final warning before compulsory termination for speeding violations. It turned out the mapping data was out of date and hadn’t reflected a recent increase in speed limit from 30 to 40 on a short stretch of road near his house. Having insurance terminated is a serious matter you must declare on new proposals so in the end he just cancelled it altogether.

The solution to this problem is something only the government is capable of doing. Whatever speed limit the computer system believes to be in place on the road is the one it will believe. If someone wants to change the speed limit on a road, then it must be changed in this central place first. Cars can then fetch the current speed limits from this central database.

 

[cactustwirly]

The poor state of public transport is not a reason why we should not create a system which will fix the indirect subsidy of private vehicle use which has led to public transport provision in so many areas being cut back.

Once you charge people for car use, they're going to care a lot more that there is public transport. One of the indirect reasons for that is that as public or active transport use in an area increases, the fixed road space that is available will become more free for private vehicles. If we charge the tax on the basis of congestion, then the tax could actually go down as a result of more public transport - e.g. a rail line being (re)opened parallel to a main road.



This is part of a wider societal discussion about the nature of development. The subsidy of car use has allowed Britain to sprawl in such a way that people now need to travel in ways which are only really practical by car. Fixing this subsidy will naturally result in development going in the opposite direction. Houses out in suburban sprawl will be less desirable due to higher travel costs, while those in denser urban areas will become more desirable. With developers going for density, the councils will have to follow suit with where they put schools.



As said above, it isn't necessarily a bad thing that less time-sensitive hauliers would take more circuitous routes, especially once we have our shift to electric vehicles. The key is that there is consistency across the road network. One of the specific issues with road tolling is that it can create perverse incentives. It's easy to put in a toll plaza on the brand new motorway or other trunk road you've just built bypassing a medieval town but it's rather harder to toll people for driving through the town. If the toll is set too high, then drivers will just continue to drive through it, unless you start putting in place even more complex measures.

With the tracking information it should be practical to experiment and see what happens. If we notice unfortunate side-effects, then we can tweak the costs to see if they get better.

Also, a factor involved in HGV taxation and regulation gives a good reason why this tracking system needs to cover everything fitted with a number plate. HGVs require special licensing and they are regulated in special ways with tachometers. However, there are some movements which can be done with smaller vehicles which do not get regulated. There's an entire cottage industry of couriers who only ever use large panel vans and they're able to drive much faster across Europe because they don't have to stop. If you just create a new tax for lorries, it'll just shift more and more missions into smaller vans. If you tax all vehicles and then have a smooth tax curve across vehicle classes and usages this won't happen. That's why it's best just to use vehicle mass, possibly divided by tyre contact patch size, in the formula rather than fixed values for different classes of vehicle.



The solution to this problem is something only the government is capable of doing. Whatever speed limit the computer system believes to be in place on the road is the one it will believe. If someone wants to change the speed limit on a road, then it must be changed in this central place first. Cars can then fetch the current speed limits from this central database.

What's this "indirect subsidy" you talk about?

 

[87 027]

But why should I be worried if the State is tracking my vehicle’s location? I’ve got nothing to hide. Indeed having had a couple pinched in the past, I would have found it rather useful.

An entirely legitimate view for you, as a private individual, to hold in respect of yourself. The wider question is the nature of future society when anything and everything can be routinely tracked. Perhaps the day is not too far off when we reach a tipping point when the majority are entirely comfortable with this as the new normal.

My take is that the Information Commissioner's Office and the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation have a more nuanced and considered view. CDEI have recently produced a report into online targeting which shows that whilst people like the convenience and personalisation of services that data collection enables, the seriousness of their concerns grow as they become more informed about the implications. The Alan Turing Institute also has some fairly thought-provoking views about the potential harms to society that might follow on from exploiting vastly improved access to data, computing power to process it and artificial intelligence to analyse it.

 

[Domh245]

it isn't necessarily a bad thing that less time-sensitive hauliers would take more circuitous routes

I'm not so sure. If "more circuitous" route means taking alternate motorways (eg M1/M6 rather than M40/M42) or taking fast dual carriageways instead then sure. But as soon as you start getting unnecessary HGVs down residential roads and other 'normal' roads in the interest of saving a few pounds then it's not acceptable.

 

[87 027]

I'm not so sure. If "more circuitous" route means taking alternate motorways (eg M1/M6 rather than M40/M42) or taking fast dual carriageways instead then sure. But as soon as you start getting unnecessary HGVs down residential roads and other 'normal' roads in the interest of saving a few pounds then it's not acceptable.

Yes, the concern was using A roads and going through country towns rather than using the motorway network.

There is also the somewhat technical but nevertheless not untrivial question of who actually owns the roads and what authority there is for central government to charge for roads owned or maintained by local authorities or others. And, as I posted upthread, I live on an unadopted road - what's to stop the authorities tweaking the charging regime to send traffic down my road in preference to nearby roads maintained at public expense? Can I have a share of the charges towards my maintenance costs please?

 

[The Ham]

They are dangerous for pedestrians if they are on the path and dangerous for the riders if on the road (as the French have found out)

There first point is why, like cycles, the suggestion is that the scooters should use the carriageway.

On the second point on an empty carriageway are e-scooters at any more risk than riding a cycle? How about if they share the space with cycles? If not why then should they be at any greater risk if they share the space with cars than if the user were on a cycle?

If they are at no greater risk than if they are on a cycle then why should we not allow them to use our roads, unless this concern of safely is just car drivers not wishing to share their roadspace.

However as I've highlighted before if there's less people driving then the driving experience for those who continue to do so is much nicer. Therefore if wish to carry on driving it's in their interest that as many other road users as possible no longer drive.

As I've highlighted before, if we could reduce car usage by 10% it would be similar to driving around in the school holidays during term time. With all the benefits which that brings, including being able to get around much more easily than is currently the case, with the reduced stress which would be the byproduct.

With the ability to more easily carry an e-scooter and the ability to have them say under a desk as well as other advantages you may well attract other users who wouldn't otherwise use a cycle.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not so sure. If "more circuitous" route means taking alternate motorways (eg M1/M6 rather than M40/M42) or taking fast dual carriageways instead then sure. But as soon as you start getting unnecessary HGVs down residential roads and other 'normal' roads in the interest of saving a few pounds then it's not acceptable.

The local roads would be charged at a higher rate, and would be slower too, so there would be no reason for the HGV to come off the motorway except for final access to its destination.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, the concern was using A roads and going through country towns rather than using the motorway network.

There is also the somewhat technical but nevertheless not untrivial question of who actually owns the roads and what authority there is for central government to charge for roads owned or maintained by local authorities or others. And, as I posted upthread, I live on an unadopted road - what's to stop the authorities tweaking the charging regime to send traffic down my road in preference to nearby roads maintained at public expense? Can I have a share of the charges towards my maintenance costs please?

In theory there's nothing stopping private road users putting in a request for charging for the use of their road.

 

[87 027]

With the ability to more easily carry an e-scooter and the ability to have them say under a desk as well as other advantages you may well attract other users who wouldn't otherwise use a cycle.

Completely agree. I wouldn't contemplate cycling in my area of suburban London (loads of parked cars, traffic islands and high frequency bus routes make a dangerous combination) but I do have a classic foot-propelled scooter and would go even further if I had an electric one.

I would support sensible restrictions e.g. speed restricted to a moderate jogging pace so you could just jump off in the case of an emergency. I am undecided whether roads or pavements are safer and interested in people's views (maybe in a different thread). RoSPA suggest that on balance pavements are safer as long as you're not inconsiderate, or downright reckless or stupid.

 

[87 027]

In theory there's nothing stopping private road users putting in a request for charging for the use of their road.

In an ideal world, but the relevant council Director has already told us to our face that it suits his financial situation to have people use our road rather than his publicly maintained ones.

Real world details, details, details!

 

[Meerkat]

1) nope, the car’s computer has its own ‘phone’

So why does my car insist I have to pair my mobile to the car if I want the emergency stuff to work?

2) why would they need to ? It’s tracking the vehicle, not the person

Do the data folk not protect mobile phone tracking data?

3) it might do. It hasn’t for the last century or so, though, and I’m prepared to bet that it won’t for the next century. Therefore I have no concerns.

Politics is becoming rapidly more unstable and it’s not just your own government you need worry about any more

On the second point on an empty carriageway are e-scooters at any more risk than riding a cycle?

Empty carriageway? The scooters are smaller, less stable (very unstable on bumps) and more erratic

I would support sensible restrictions e.g. speed restricted to a moderate jogging pace so you could just jump off in the case of an emergency. I am undecided whether roads or pavements are safer and interested in people's views (maybe in a different thread). RoSPA suggest that on balance pavements are safer as long as you're not inconsiderate, or downright reckless or stupid.

Absolutely definitely shouldn’t be on the pavement - they are annoying enough already whilst illegal.
I read the French are having second thoughts about them due to the number of accidents

 

[NotATrainspott]

Yes, the concern was using A roads and going through country towns rather than using the motorway network.

This is what a tracking-based system can do that a pure mileage-based or tolled trunk road one could not, or would even make worse. It's a clear example of a downfall of a seemingly simpler and more privacy-aware taxation system. The loss of privacy from a tracking system will only be acceptable to the courts if it is proven beyond all doubt that anything less will result in even greater problems for society.

There is also the somewhat technical but nevertheless not untrivial question of who actually owns the roads and what authority there is for central government to charge for roads owned or maintained by local authorities or others. And, as I posted upthread, I live on an unadopted road - what's to stop the authorities tweaking the charging regime to send traffic down my road in preference to nearby roads maintained at public expense? Can I have a share of the charges towards my maintenance costs please?

In an ideal world, but the relevant council Director has already told us to our face that it suits his financial situation to have people use our road rather than his publicly maintained ones.

Real world details, details, details!

In my mind private owners of properties accessible to vehicles would be free to plug in to the system too. This makes a lot of sense for private parking firms. Any legal parking fees could be just sent through the tax system. The private companies would receive only the bare minimum information required for them to run their business, the same that any ANPR car parks are already collecting.

So why does my car insist I have to pair my mobile to the car if I want the emergency stuff to work?

Older cars didn't come with their own mobile connection. That's changing.

In general, one of the concepts of 5G and beyond is that the line between the cellular network and private WiFi will blur. The sorts of things that we currently connect to our WiFi (from laptops to smart lightbulbs) may well in future just connect to the main cellular network, since that cellular network will end up having cells small enough to fit on every Nth lamp post on the street. The cost of a mobile connection will essentially drop to zero, both in equipment and ongoing service costs. This is the wonderful future of Internet of Things (IoT).

Do the data folk not protect mobile phone tracking data?

Politics is becoming rapidly more unstable and it’s not just your own government you need worry about any more

The problem again is that the world is changing and we aren't necessarily going to be able to control this.

Cars aren't going to be cars in future. They're going to be robots that happen to be large enough for a human to sit inside them comfortably. Would you have the same privacy concerns about tracking robots which didn't happen to be large enough for a human to sit inside them?

 

[Meerkat]

Would you have the same privacy concerns about tracking robots which didn't happen to be large enough for a human to sit inside them?

Obviously not, unless those robots were doing things in my home.

Older cars didn't come with their own mobile connection. That's changing.

This, and the rest of your post, demonstrate why we need to be very careful.
The data stealers are boiling frogs - we are losing our freedom and privacy bit by bit without anyone asking us whether we are really happy about it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Politics is becoming rapidly more unstable and it’s not just your own government you need worry about any more

Ok, but even with that I’m entirely comfortable with it, as should anybody with a mobile phone or motor vehicle. Bear in mind that roadside ANPR data is also routinely collected for vehicle location data.

May I ask, why are you concerned? Other than a perceived loss of liberty, what specific scenarios are you worried about that the extension of already existing and used tracking technology into road user charging might cause?

 

[87 027]

On mobile connectivity - we do need to bear in mind rural locations and other not-spots. This should not be a problem with 4G as this is what the new Emergency Services Network is built on, although coverage is not 100%. However, whereas the optimal range of a 4G mobile transmitter is around 7 miles, for 5G it is around 300 metres. Also, whereas 4G transmitters can onwardly transmit their data via microwave links, 5G needs fibre optic cables for high capacity and low latency backhaul, so that is another consideration.

 

[87 027]

Ok, but even with that I’m entirely comfortable with it, as should anybody with a mobile phone or motor vehicle.

Other than a perceived loss of liberty

Words lightly spoken. Maybe nobody is that bothered.

Remind me why UK government is still holding out against national ID cards and is still averse to a single national identifier for individuals? (National Insurance number cannot legally be used for purposes other than taxes or benefits, and is explicitly not linked to your NHS records)

 

[AM9]

... (National Insurance number cannot legally be used for purposes other than taxes or benefits, and is explicitly not linked to your NHS records)

True, there's an NHS patient number for everyone from birth. The fact that many don't know theirs and can't be bothered to find out makes no difference to the fact that the NHS tracks their health with it.

 

[AM9]

Words lightly spoken. Maybe nobody is that bothered. ...

Every new benefit brought with a change in the law comes with a disbenefit to somebody else, (even the law that forbids murder does that), so a fair system of road use charging would probably be seen as a benefit with negligible downside by a majority of the electorate irrespective of the chorus of conspiracy theorists complaining bout their privacy, (which is a misnomer anyway). The day of unnecessary personal road use being subsidised by general taxation is fast approaching its end.

 

[87 027]

The day of unnecessary personal road use being subsidised by general taxation is fast approaching its end.

Actually I think as a broad principle we can see the merits of this as a direction of travel.

But when you start to consider in more detail what constitutes necessary and unnecessary travel, and look at it through the lens of people's personal situations, and further factor in the extent to which these arise from their hands being forced by wider circumstances outside their control rather than genuinely free choices, it becomes more complex.

And on the notion of public transport as a realistically viable option there are two somewhat cliched questions - chicken and egg, and carrot and stick. Public transport does have to be a good enough alternative. Yes, I'm looking at you Northern Rail on a Sunday. My last attempt to travel from the Manchester suburbs to London with kids in tow and school the next morning was a disaster and I won't be risking it again anytime soon.

My concerns also remain about (i) the potential for punitive decisions being made on ideological grounds by future governments, and (ii) the wider disbenefits to society arising from mass data collection and analysis (ref. ICO. CDEI and Turing research)

In respect of (i) above I should perhaps explain that I grew up in an era where my parents, who both left school at 16, scrimped and saved to send me to independent school but we had "loony left" local government which was extremely hostile and denied independent school pupils - but not state school pupils - any concessionary travel on public transport. My dad worked for the Co-op and my mum was a cleaner so we were obviously part of the "elite"

 

[JamesT]

In what way are they more dangerous than a non electric version or an electric cycle?

I'd suggest that the biggest risk from having them on the roads (where the suggestion is that they would be) is from cars. If we were to be considering allowing cycles onto our roads is suggest that similar objections would be forth coming. However for anyone who is a car driver the now people who use other modes of travel the better it is for those who remain as car drivers.

I give you the example of the school holidays when traffic volumes of non tourists areas drop significantly, view of only there was another example I could cite where traffic has fallen leaving that it's easier to drive around for the few cars still doing so....

The main problem with scooters (Both electric and non) compared to bicycles is their much smaller wheels. They’re going to be more severely affected by poor road conditions that force them to act in ways the traffic around them doesn’t expect (e.g. swerving or falling off).

As there’s no law to allow them, it also means there’s currently no standards on safety features like brakes, reflectors, or lights as you would find with a bicycle.

 

[87 027]

As there’s no law to allow them, it also means there’s currently no standards on safety features like brakes, reflectors, or lights as you would find with a bicycle.

You're absolutely right about the small wheels - hence the need to travel cautiously.

I have fitted front and rear LED blinking lights to my push scooter so hopefully visibility is less of an issue. I always take care around pedestrians and hope others do the same, for all our sakes

 

[The Ham]

True, there's an NHS patient number for everyone from birth. The fact that many don't know theirs and can't be bothered to find out makes no difference to the fact that the NHS tracks their health with it.

You can find out what yours is by installing the NHS app.

 

[The Ham]

The main problem with scooters (Both electric and non) compared to bicycles is their much smaller wheels. They’re going to be more severely affected by poor road conditions that force them to act in ways the traffic around them doesn’t expect (e.g. swerving or falling off).

As there’s no law to allow them, it also means there’s currently no standards on safety features like brakes, reflectors, or lights as you would find with a bicycle.

The electric scooters tend to be the larger wheel versions, which whilst still smaller than bike wheels are comparable to those of the larger wheels found on buggies.

Whilst these are still prone to the concerns raised, this could be resolved in the most part of national government provided a suitable level of money to local councils.

In that during the last few years there's been ever increasing costs which councils have to bear through increased social care spending, due to an aging population (which was known about since, yet nothing has been done, at least 1997), whilst at the same time seeing the amount of central government grand fall significantly. This has put budgets under pressure and lead to a significant deterioration in the quality of road surfaces.

If there was a National Social Care Service which removed these budget problems from the Country Councils then it could well be that road maintenance could be much better.

Currently it is illegal to use any vehicle which doesn't confirm to the regulations. Effectively this means bikes, motorcycles, cars, buses, vans and lorries and excludes scooters, Segways and the like.

Any law to allow scooters would therefore set the standards by which they have to adhere to. This would include the need for a bell, lights and the like, in the same way that cycles have to adhere to.

On a side note, my children who do need to use their scooters when is dark during the winter do have lights fitted. Not so that they can see, but rather so that they can be seen by others.

 

[AM9]

Actually I think as a broad principle we can see the merits of this as a direction of travel.

But when you start to consider in more detail what constitutes necessary and unnecessary travel, and look at it through the lens of people's personal situations, and further factor in the extent to which these arise from their hands being forced by wider circumstances outside their control rather than genuinely free choices, it becomes more complex.

And on the notion of public transport as a realistically viable option there are two somewhat cliched questions - chicken and egg, and carrot and stick. Public transport does have to be a good enough alternative. Yes, I'm looking at you Northern Rail on a Sunday. My last attempt to travel from the Manchester suburbs to London with kids in tow and school the next morning was a disaster and I won't be risking it again anytime soon.

My concerns also remain about (i) the potential for punitive decisions being made on ideological grounds by future governments, and (ii) the wider disbenefits to society arising from mass data collection and analysis (ref. ICO. CDEI and Turing research)

In respect of (i) above I should perhaps explain that I grew up in an era where my parents, who both left school at 16, scrimped and saved to send me to independent school but we had "loony left" local government which was extremely hostile and denied independent school pupils - but not state school pupils - any concessionary travel on public transport. My dad worked for the Co-op and my mum was a cleaner so we were obviously part of the "elite"

The question of unnecessary vs necessary travel is really exacerbated by the parlous nature of public transport, - especially with buses. I grew up in outer London suburbia Essex where local transport was LT, (buses & underground) and national rail, BR of course. Deeper into the county there was also Eastern National, which on days out or holidays was perfectly usable and convenient. About the only complaints seemed to be from the government (Conservative at the time) whose ideological ambitions were to remove anything that looked like a subsidy. With Earnest Marples, a minister of Transport that been the MD of a major construction company (Marples Ridgway) and still had significant interests in the company, he pushed a massive road building programme including the core of the current motorway network, and simultaneously appointed Beeching to the take his very critical review of railway services. Forget the more recent occasional abuse of position by MPs, his five years and two days in MoT office was a conflict of interest on a scale unimaginable today.
It was this period that bribed public opinion with fast new roads to run cars on whilst painting the picture of buses (and trains to a degree) as being for poor people who don't have ambition. As recent as the '90s, a Conservative junior transport minuister Steven Norris underwrote the right-wing attitude towards bus services with a very telling statement: "..you don’t have to sit next to horrible, smelly people.." Once the rot had been set in, buses were almost doomed to slide down to their current socially and financially compromised state. Operations that survived deregulation (a few PTEs and of course London Transport (as TfL), are still generally providing sommething near the required local services, but unless competing profit seeking bus operators come under some form of regualtion with subsidy where necessary, (yes it isn't a dirty word in the provision of essential public services), general transport will be very difficult for those unable to drive or those who cannot afford private transport.

 

[Meerkat]

May I ask, why are you concerned? Other than a perceived loss of liberty, what specific scenarios are you worried about that the extension of already existing and used tracking technology into road user charging might cause?

Freedom from tyrannical government was hard won and shouldn’t be given away lightly.
I think your argument is irrelevant because I don’t think all the current tracking technology should have been introduced, certainly not without asking the people “are you really sure you want this?”

The electric scooters tend to be the larger wheel versions, which whilst still smaller than bike wheels are comparable to those of the larger wheels found on buggies.

How do even the larger wheels interact with drain covers?

Any law to allow scooters would therefore set the standards by which they have to adhere to. This would include the need for a bell, lights and the like, in the same way that cycles have to adhere to.

I struggle to see how you could get an effective rear light high enough on a scooter

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Freedom from tyrannical government was hard won and shouldn’t be given away lightly.

That answer seems to me largely irrelevant to the thing being discussed. No-one here is proposing anything to do with tyrannical Government or loss of freedom. A tyrannical Government would be something like, a Government that locks you up for expressing legitimate nonviolent opinions opposing it, or which subjects you to arbitrary forced labour or confiscates your property on a whim and so on.

What is being proposed is collecting some data that can then be used for useful things, like road charging to more effectively control congestion, saving lives by keeping roads safer, and preventing many crimes that would otherwise wreck innocent people's lives.

It seems astonishing to me that anyone could confuse those two things - as they are totally different.

 

[AM9]

That answer seems to me largely irrelevant to the thing being discussed. No-one here is proposing anything to do with tyrannical Government or loss of freedom. A tyrannical Government would be something like, a Government that locks you up for expressing legitimate nonviolent opinions opposing it, or which subjects you to arbitrary forced labour or confiscates your property on a whim and so on.

What is being proposed is collecting some data that can then be used for useful things, like road charging to more effectively control congestion, saving lives by keeping roads safer, and preventing many crimes that would otherwise wreck innocent people's lives.

It seems astonishing to me that anyone could confuse those two things - as they are totally different.

It seems de rigeur for conspiracy theorists and libertarians that those two things are being conflated.

 

[Bald Rick]

Freedom from tyrannical government was hard won and shouldn’t be given away lightly.

That’s not a specific scenario, but a broad brush principle. I’m genuinely interested in this - what could a government or other authority do with this data that is specifically concerning?

(Noting that they already have access to the data, with as far as I can see, only beneficial effects such as enabling the conviction of murderers, or more lightly, helping drivers to avoid traffic congestion).

That answer seems to me largely irrelevant to the thing being discussed. No-one here is proposing anything to do with tyrannical Government or loss of freedom. A tyrannical Government would be something like, a Government that locks you up for expressing legitimate nonviolent opinions opposing it, or which subjects you to arbitrary forced labour or confiscates your property on a whim and so on.

What is being proposed is collecting some data that can then be used for useful things, like road charging to more effectively control congestion, saving lives by keeping roads safer, and preventing many crimes that would otherwise wreck innocent people's lives.

It seems astonishing to me that anyone could confuse those two things - as they are totally different.

 

[Meerkat]

a Government that locks you up for expressing legitimate nonviolent opinions opposing it

Indeed, and how does that government find such people? If they knew a meeting had taken place it would be handy to download all cars that had been in the vicinity

I am no lefty crazy - quite the opposite. But then seeing how some of the Momentum folk hounded their own out of the party imagine what they would have done given the powers of MI-5 and GCHQ.
Once that data is on a server then the Yanks would have access - maybe Trump wants to track those opposing a trade deal....- and the Chinese would have a look to track their dissenters here.
Or the Russians just want to offer you some tea.