Driving plans for pay-per-mile tax and the implications

I have a dumb phone and often go out without it.

I'll be honest I hadn't actually noticed it wasn't in the title. I personally would put it in the title because that means others can avoid opening the thread at all. I'm not sure that a specific rule was made for where the trigger warning should go. I think as long as the trigger warning is before a person would have started reading the thread then it's fine but I personally would probably put it in the title.

For clarity, you say that the warning should be in the title, but here it is in the first line, I take it that's OK, and is it a case of if in doubt, post a warning?
Or if not, then what are the guidelines?

No not necessarily. Ideally people will keep it to stating opinion rather than turning it into an emotionally charged argument. 

It is more a case that there have been previous topics, not necessarily political that have caused others to get upset and report posts as they weren't fully aware of what the content was going to be until they'd read the whole thread. 

This started a debate as to what should be censored from being posted and how it took away others freedom to discuss what they wished. It was discussed amongst the community and the winning vote was that we post topics of our choosing as long as it is within the rules but if it a topic that could cause upset we put a trigger warning.

Some people can be very upset and anxious by political topics. Some of the suggestions and discussions here could really trigger someone's anxiety. Having the trigger warning in the title means they can avoid this anxiety by not opening the thread. But those that enjoy it are interested in such discussions can take part.

Do you mean that we're just trying to avoid the kind of blazing row that political opinions tend to turn into?

There are still a few businesses who only take cash and workmen who offer cheaper work for cash. However there are also people who believe when they are asked to pay taxes they make statements about not believing in paying taxes. 

Homebird said:

Sorry to be cynical, but wondering if those people will pay their fines.

I'm sure there will be hold-outs much like there are today, but a the methods of control spread then the ability to escape it will reduce.

The government are making it harder and harder to use cash as they want oversight of everything you spend and buy. 

They already have pressured the banks into not giving out largish sums of money without proof of what is being bought (a fairly new development) to stop large sums being spent without their knowledge and choking the supply for people who deal in largish amounts of cash (thing second hand car salesmen, drug dealers and other such suspicious individuals).

Over time there will be fewer an fewer options for these people to avoid the "system".

It sounds complicated - I'm glad I don't drive. I also - shock horror - sometimes go to the shop without a mobile phone! (I spent the first 40 years of my life without one, so it's not strange to me)

I could travel around my area all day, paying cash on the bus, without a phone, and nobody would know where I had been. But it would be a bit of a pointless exercise as I have nothing to hide. The government know where I live anyway and I'd have to come home at some point.

Sorry to be cynical, but wondering if those people will pay their fines.

Another government could do many things - we'd be here for a very long time going through them all. They could already have decided it should all be added to our driver's licenses or passports. As I say - unless they change the actual law this can't legally happen. The data protection act exists for a reason. I really don't think it is a big conspiracy.

I don't think that's always suspicion - I'm not saying it never is. But in this day and age technology has become so ingrained in most of us that I think it is a very foreign concept that someone may not have a smart phone. I admit it is a concept that I find hard to get my head round - I wouldn't know how to do a significant amount of things without my phone. Online portals are very common for many things now as most people prefer to do it online. For me it is a huge benefit autism wise because I hate using the phone. Are you sure this person was using it as a threat and not just suprise and keeping you informed?

I'm not saying there aren't any corrupt people out there or any bad intentions from those above. But I do not believe the government is one big conspiracy against us all.

You're right to begin with digital ID won't hold much information about you, but this is what I mean by mission creep, another government might decide we need all sorts of other information held on it without clarifying who has legitimate access to it.

It's also a big part of the reason I was writing earlier about how suspicious those in any authority are about someone who has no smart phone and has no social media. When I was sorting my benefits out last week the chap on the phone to the person helping me wanted me to confirm that I wanted the person to act for me, but also to confirm that I had no smart phone or the digital skills to do everything online, he ended with the "threat" 'you won't be able to access your government portal!'. I thought, well I can't access it now as I don't know how. But this digression is to show how those with even a little bit of power will wave it like a big stick. 

Data from phones already gets handed over in many crimes. That isn't new. Phone data is already used to check your location. Social media posts to show intent etc. 

Unless another government does a total overhaul of data protection, nothing would change. The police couldn't suddenly access all of your data without permission. Yes obviously you're going to get the odd corrupt police officer that may do it anyway but they probably could now.

I think you're over estimating how this digital ID is going to work. It isn't going to hold all of your personal information that can be taken at one swipe. 

I really don't think it's going to hold much more, if any, information than a driving license currently does, that the police are already able to look up.

It's still possible to drive round Anglesey without encountering APNR cameras, I've met a couple of people who do it regularly, one because he has no licence and never has, and the other because of his politics, which seem somewhat to the right of Farage's. I think there are a few places where APNR cameras are few and far between, it would be totally impracticle to have such cameras on the miles and miles of small roads in the countryside, the more rural you are the fewer cameras of any kind there are. I think it would be simply too expensive to have them on every little single track lane and farm gate. Have you ever wondered why so many little country lanes are national speed limit, despite many being single track roads? It's because it's impossible to police, I think they sort of hope speeding numpties will drive into a tree or a tractor and Darwnism will sort it out.

Another thing, what about areas where signal is patchy or non existant?

Will cyclists have to pay for thier road use too, or will they get away with paying nothing again?

I was meaning the mission creep that's inevitable with such technology, if we have a digital ID card, which was what I was talking about as well as road pricing. Whilst the current government might not give permission for police or others to access our information another government could, that would be when there would be the possibilities for not investigating crimes or for handing over data from phones to the defence.

Homebird said:

I wonder how many people currently drive without insurance.

About 300,000 (source: https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2024/june/shocking-levels-of-uninsured-vehicle-on-uk-roads/ )

Think of this new monitoring system as being a great way in the governments eyes for them to catch ever more of them though. Lots of fines and later revenue from the offending drivers and it being way harder for them to offend in future, especially if they phones are tracked now.

Once all vehicles reqire this system then it will be much easier to identify ones that lack it - a bit like the congestion charge zone where cameras will be able to identify vehicles readily and apprehension of the vehicles can be outsourced to private companies (with MPs on their board of directors of course) who will get a cut of the fine and probably of the impounded vehicle value as well.

Existing systems can handle almost all of this already.

Currently you don't pay road tax if you have come from abroad and have no intention of living here so I imagine that would remain.

I wonder how many people currently drive without insurance. So now the situation is that the honest people pay more for everything and those who don't believe in paying taxes will get something else for free, unless in this case it is possible to impound the vehicle they are 'currently' driving. 

Homebird said:

Unless it is only for residents people would have to get a 'box' before entering the country.

I'm pretty sure the government would find a scheme to have a "loan" device to rent to them to meet the legal requirements - this way they get to charge for the milage plus box rental and this would more than cover the admin cost of providing the service.

Implement it at the ports as part of the customs checks and the existing infrastructure can still be used.

Homebird said:

For residents, I question how this would be policed

With the large number of number place recognition cameras already in use, it will be trivial to alert the traffic plod to pick them up and fine them - yet more revenue for no extra overhead.

I expect a large number of toll booths being setup as well which will use the NPR cameras to auto impound cars that are not showing as being covered and are not giving the signal from the required box.

These would not need to charge for for registered vehicles to pass through as the fines would more than cover the costs.

Homebird said:

How much would need to be spent and what would the punishment be for not having a box?

Most of the infrastructure is in place in cities already so it is just the more rural and remote areas that will probably be slow on the uptake, but it should be self financing in the short term.

Punishments are simple - no box = no insurance so the fine would be risking losing your license and your vehicle plus an unlimited fine just as it is now. A pretty powerful motivator.

https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/driving-without-insurance/

Aside from the tracking, but relevant if concerned, is the practicality. I can't see how this could possibly work. There are people coming in and out of the country all the time. Unless it is only for residents people would have to get a 'box' before entering the country.

For residents, I question how this would be policed. I think back to the difficulties during the pandemic of fines for those who broke the regulations and many who didn't follow the rules. How much would need to be spent and what would the punishment be for not having a box?

I'm a bit confused by your example of being assaulted. I'm not sure why the police would be gaining full access to your medical records because of technology that can track cars. They'd still have to have a warrant to request them same as now. 

But even if they did have access to them. How would having a mental health condition mean the police wouldn't be able to prosecute the other person for assaulting you?