Returns Scroll Stop Automatic mode

The bistro of the site, leisure and relaxation, humor and friendlinessRE Be citizens: pollute more!

The developments of the forum and site. Humor and conviviality among members of the forum - Everything is anything - Presentation of new registered members Relaxation, leisure, recreation, sports, vacation, passions ... What do you do in your free time? Exchange Forum passions, activities, leisure or recreational ... creative!
Philflam
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 18
Registration: 09/03/04, 11:56

Unread Messageby Philflam » 30/08/04, 22:03

"We had already passed the measures favoring the purchase of vehicles less greedy (23 / 07 news), and here we are still forced to consume and pollute more!"

Can anybody enlighten me on that? : Rolleyes:
0 x

Christine
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1144
Registration: 09/08/04, 22:53
Location: In Belgium, once

Unread Messageby Christine » 31/08/04, 11:22

Hello!

"The measures favoring the purchase of less greedy vehicles had already been dropped


In June all media reported noisily that heavy-duty vehicles would be taxed on the purchase and that the proceeds of this tax would be redistributed as a rebate to those who would choose to buy a low-consumption vehicle . This measure had the double interest of dissuading (a little) those who choose "unnecessary" pollution (style the 4-4 in town) and give a "boost" to those who have the means to Pay "only" a small car.
But in July, the project was set aside because it led to a drop in fuel consumption and therefore a fall in state revenues.


We are forced to consume and pollute more! "


Lowering speed due to road safety campaigns, fuel prices etc. led to a decrease of 1% of fuel consumption. Good news from the point of view of polluting emissions but catastrophe for the coffers of the State which end up with a drop of income and a hole of 1 billion which did not return.

How can this shortfall be filled? The government believes that the answer is to fuel fuel consumption.
How to go up consumption, which has bad press, without becoming unpopular? The Answers6: make sure people do not notice it and invent a bogus trick.

And this is how by forcing motorists to roll lights on they are forced to consume more fuel.
What is perverse in this story is that:
1) The safety of other users is sacrificed on the altar of money and electoral popularity
2) We pass a varnish of good feelings (so-called security, etc.) on motivations not pretty-pretty. (And we take people for cons.)
3) We still make the choice of oil instead of trying to get out of this spiral that we constantly denounce on economics.

I hope I have not been too long, but it seems important to me because it is very representative of our society that walks on the head.
0 x
Christine
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1144
Registration: 09/08/04, 22:53
Location: In Belgium, once

Unread Messageby Christine » 31/08/04, 11:31

Oops, I see you're in Belgium, Philflam. You are not directly concerned by these Franco-French measures. But maybe there are also aberrations in Belgium?
0 x
Philflam
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 18
Registration: 09/03/04, 11:56

Unread Messageby Philflam » 11/09/04, 08:05

Thank you very much Christine I see more clearly now. If this vision sticks to reality, it is purely crapulous and revolting.

There must be aberrations of this kind in Belgium, but I am not aware of it, the Belgians being (as far as I know) a bit sleepy compared to the French and less subject to the popular uprising ... But I will take an example Seems to me critical: our freeways are always free, people who do not have cars contribute for the maintenance of roads well broken by heavy goods ... In short I think we can talk about an aberration ... But we do not hear (to my knowledge) any political party talking about a project of paid motorways. No doubt for fear of the virulent reaction of the road transport sector.

Yet
- this would significantly reduce traffic and encourage people to limit their travel and carpooling.
- it would encourage people to take the train, especially the commuters
- this would make it possible to improve public transport by allocating part of the revenue
- citizens who do not have a car would no longer be penalized ...
- this would make roads safer thanks to better maintenance ... more secure roads = (?) Fewer traffic jams
- and with a little luck it would decrease the number of trucks on the roads, so even greater safety! In any case this would make freight transport by rail / water more competitive, even if everything is to be thought!
- it would create employment: maintenance of roads and posts at tolls (although in my opinion, it is a lure to think that this kind of jobs improves the quality of life: rolleyes :)






PS: I want to clarify that I have a car ..... :D
0 x
Bibiphoque
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 749
Registration: 31/03/04, 07:37
Location: Brussels

Unread Messageby Bibiphoque » 13/09/04, 09:16

:P ;)
Hello,
The toll motorway in Belgium is simply unfeasible in the sense that given the number of entrances and exits, the infrastructure would be huge and its cost would make the operation unprofitable. The only way would be to use a sticker, as in Switzerland, but again, it would take infrastructure at the borders to sell these vignettes! Yet, that would create employment ....
A + B)
0 x
This is not because we always said that it is impossible that we should not try :)


Back to "The bistro of the site, leisure and relaxation, humor and friendliness"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and guests 2

Popular searches