Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge

[Termite Man]

Thats a fine argument if you accept that tax on fuel covers the true cost of burinng it. I do not. Burning more fuel costs society more.

I accept SUV's do more damage/cost more to soceity , I havenever said different . Why not address my points about using the congestion charge being used as a political tool and attempt to sneak taxation in through the back door ?
SUV's do not increase congestion any more than a car does so they should not pay more congestion charge . If the government have a problem with inefficient vehicles then why not increase tax on them at point of purchase or increase road tax for them , I just think the whole extra congestion charge is a stupid route to take !

 

[Termite Man]

Can you refute this and if not, why are you defending the supposed right of people to selfishly endanger others by driving vehicles that are more likely to maim and kill?

and extra congestion charge will make SUV's safer how . If SUV's are given their own seperate classification for driving tests would hopefully mean it is harder for people to be able to drive them and maybe put people off buying one , and those that do drive SUV's will hopefully be proven to be better drivers , this idea has been suggested by 2 different people and generally been ignored rather than repeating the dangers of SUV's could you not comment on ideas to make them safer ?

 

[Pie 1]

I see you're still doing your very best to avoid engaging with the debate. so I'll make it easier for you and do it one point at a time.

Ah, I see. Lets go all sarcastic & condecending. Charming.

I'm not defending them as you well know.

I found your anti 4x4 ranting unhelpful and sometimes rather kneejerk - IMO. and picked you up for claiming that your opinions were 'accurate descriptions'.
You've gotten very arsey with me for doing so.

Whatever.

 

[fredfelt]

I accept SUV's do more damage/cost more to soceity , I havenever said different . Why not address my points about using the congestion charge being used as a political tool and attempt to sneak taxation in through the back door ?
SUV's do not increase congestion any more than a car does so they should not pay more congestion charge . If the government have a problem with inefficient vehicles then why not increase tax on them at point of purchase or increase road tax for them , I just think the whole extra congestion charge is a stupid route to take !

Air polution is a bigger threat to human health in built up areas.

For that reason, as far as I am concerned, when a vehicle emits more polution, especially in a built up area the driver should be charged extra for this 'privlidge'.

Taxes are always a political tool. Any why not? If your goverment is into income re-distribution tax the rich, if your goverment is into making one form of transport less desirable than another encourage this though the tax system.

If we are getting hung up on the term 'Congestion' lets look at the bigger picture. Big poluting vehicles make it less desarible for other non poluting road users to be walking, or cycling. If more dangerours and poluting vehicles are on the road they'll force other people into cars. And hence more congestion

I've alredy mentioned that once people start thinking that they need bigger cars to be safe then all cars need to be big to be safe and they must get bigger.

Lets use every tool possible to make these things socially unacceptable!

 

[editor]

I found your anti 4x4 ranting unhelpful and sometimes rather kneejerk - IMO. and picked you up for claiming that your opinions were 'accurate descriptions'.
You've gotten very arsey with me for doing so.

Whatever.

Still don't fancy engaging with the debate then?

Oh well. I tried.

 

[Termite Man]

Air polution is a bigger threat to human health in built up areas.

For that reason, as far as I am concerned, when a vehicle emits more polution, especially in a built up area the driver should be charged extra for this 'privlidge'.

Taxes are always a political tool. Any why not? If your goverment is into income re-distribution tax the rich, if your goverment is into making one form of transport less desirable than another encourage this though the tax system.

If we are getting hung up on the term 'Congestion' lets look at the bigger picture. Big poluting vehicles make it less desarible for other non poluting road users to be walking, or cycling. If more dangerours and poluting vehicles are on the road they'll force other people into cars. And hence more congestion

I've alredy mentioned that once people start thinking that they need bigger cars to be safe then all cars need to be big to be safe and they must get bigger.

Lets use every tool possible to make these things socially unacceptable!

How will this measure help people in other cities and towns though ? Don't you think an alternative method which can cover the whole country of making SUV's undesirable would be better than a London only system !

 

[Termite Man]

Air polution is a bigger threat to human health in built up areas.

Ban cars in built up areas then ! Something I doubt will happen while revenue is being made from those cars being there !

 

[fredfelt]

Ban cars in built up areas then ! Something I doubt will happen while revenue is being made from those cars being there !

I am not suggesting that. However I quite like the idea. I was answering you question about taxation for political reasons. As far as the revenue do some research into 'true cost economics' and 'external costs' and you'll find many arguments that the cost of car ownership to the driver does not cover the cost to society.

Smoking has been baned in pubs in Scotland and soon to be in the UK. Passive Smoking causes far fewer deaths than Passive Driving.

In the Inderpendant a couple of days ago there was a stat that around 2,000 pedestrians were killed by cars (in the uk in 2005). Let alone direct and indirect deaths due to polution.

Try to imagne a far free city. That would be bliss!

I accept that the car can be of use. But why not make our streets for people and not for cars?

 

[Pie 1]

Oh well. I tried.

No, you didn't.


<waits for further sarcastic/condesending last word>

 

[fredfelt]

How will this measure help people in other cities and towns though ? Don't you think an alternative method which can cover the whole country of making SUV's undesirable would be better than a London only system !

Its just another tool. I quite myself from the post

"Lets use every tool possible to make these things socially unacceptable!"

 

[Giles]

I am not suggesting that. However I quite like the idea. I was answering you question about taxation for political reasons. As far as the revenue do some research into 'true cost economics' and 'external costs' and you'll find many arguments that the cost of car ownership to the driver does not cover the cost to society.

Smoking has been baned in pubs in Scotland and soon to be in the UK. Passive Smoking causes far fewer deaths than Passive Driving.

In the Inderpendant a couple of days ago there was a stat that around 2,000 pedestrians were killed by cars (in the uk in 2005). Let alone direct and indirect deaths due to polution.

Try to imagne a car free city. That would be bliss!

I accept that the car can be of use. But why not make our streets for people and not for cars?

A car free city would not be "bliss". It would be a dead city. A hell of a lot of economic activity would simply relocate elsewhere, rather like has happened in loads of town centres where parking has been made so difficult and expensive that people doing "serious" shopping prefer to go to out-of-town centres where they can park outside.

Giles..

 

[subversplat]

Isn't the safety argument even a bit misleading on SUVs? The high centre of gravity and boxy chassis means that it's rubbish in anything more than the lightest crashes and is predisposed to flipping itself over if driven evasively (you know, to avoid a crash, rather than just ploughing through it). They are horribly over engineered, and I don't see why the manufacturers don't make a 2wd version which has much less wear on driving gear (as it only has one axle to power, it only has half the gear to wear out), would improve fuel consumption by a few percent and would be fine for my proposed new licence scheme thinger

Still, as it stands now, getting the Mercedes M-Class means you've got the biggest, shiniest, most visibile Mercedes logo short of making a trip to a Merc truck dealer.

 

[fredfelt]

A car free city would not be "bliss". It would be a dead city. A hell of a lot of economic activity would simply relocate elsewhere, rather like has happened in loads of town centres where parking has been made so difficult and expensive that people doing "serious" shopping prefer to go to out-of-town centres where they can park outside.

Giles..

I'll have to be breif on this one, but...

I was being idealistic. I accept that cars are a tool for a functioning econonmy. However they do distroy cities and make them unpleasnt places to inhabit if they are allowed unchecked.

I visited Prague before the Velvet Revolution, there were few cars on the road and I remember being amazed by the beauty of the city. Now the city is poluted and many streets a stressful place to be.

Oxford is not particularly car friendly but commerece still does fine. Infact many tourists visit this city because it is not completley clogged with cars. However it still has a long way to go before I would say it was pedestran friendly compaired to other European cities, such as Copenhagen.

Now take it to the extreem. Bangkok is a filthy poluted mess. Cars travel this city unchecked. It is overflowing with cars and has all the associated public health problems and takes an age to get around.

Now pick my arguments apart with population size and the realities of public investment. However as a vision, a car free city would be bliss. Think of the spaces you enjoy, are the congested?

Anyway I'm going off thread. The bottom line is I don't like cars. They kill, polute, look ugly, and stop people enjoying our urban spaces. They may well have their benefits but my oppinion this is at a large costs. I think I'll have to leave this debate now as I will not change my mind.

 

[Giles]

Isn't the safety argument even a bit misleading on SUVs? The high centre of gravity and boxy chassis means that it's rubbish in anything more than the lightest crashes and is predisposed to flipping itself over if driven evasively (you know, to avoid a crash, rather than just ploughing through it). They are horribly over engineered, and I don't see why the manufacturers don't make a 2wd version which has much less wear on driving gear (as it only has one axle to power, it only has half the gear to wear out), would improve fuel consumption by a few percent and would be fine for my proposed new licence scheme thinger

Still, as it stands now, getting the Mercedes M-Class means you've got the biggest, shiniest, most visibile Mercedes logo short of making a trip to a Merc truck dealer.

A lot of "4x4s" actually operate in 2WD mode most of the time for precisely the reasons you mention. My old Landrover Lightweight is usually just a 2WD car, driving the back wheels. I only use 4wd (and/or the low ratio gears) if stuck in sand or mud, or on a steep and slippery hilly road.

Giles..

 

[Descartes]

ROFLMAO


Damage to roads..... consider... tyre size... tyres on 4x4 are larger, contact area with road is larger.. i.e footprint.... weight is spread across a greater area thus weight per square centimetre is less ... smaller vehicles with smaller tyres exceed weight per square centimetre than 4x4..... fact of life, not opinion, not conjecture.

Over engineered. falsehood.... 4x4 do not comply with BSI crash standards, so... pracitically and scientifically the driver is in greater danger in a crash than the average saloon.

4x4 do not kill or maim or injure. they way they are driven causes the problems. So, a short test and acclimatisation for drivers would reduce ' supposed' or ' alleged' figures.

Weight, Mitsubishi shogun Gross vehicle weight kg 2510

Weight Mitsubishi Lancer Gross vehicle weight kg 1885

Weight BMW 520 max permissable: (Kg ) 2150

Played with the Mercedes site.... got up to 117k in vehicle spec.... yer dream on... S class with all the kit... but heavy and only 19.6 to the gallon.... and grams per kilo emissions very high...lot higher than any 4x4 but hey that 's not part of the argument, is it?

But back to the debate..

There is so much spurious info, It is unbelievable.... opinion and red top papers .. well say no more... excitable and misleading are a good start for descriptions...

length and weight are just distraction to the real debate, and ... the wording of ' more 4x4 than...' The large number of fatalities in accidents involving commercial vehicles, trucks, vans, light vans far exceed accidents in 4x4s. The type of accident, the vehicle responsibility for the accident is not given, just that a given type of vehicle was in an accident, again misleading.as to the cause.

The hyperbole from uninformed sources is the cause of more trouble than any 4x4 driven across the local common.

The outlet for prejudices, social indignation, and class warfare are all tools to attack, what is only a motor vehicle, not the biggest, heaviest, the least miles per gallon, the most grams per kilo emissions and not the most determental to the roads or the enviroment

In consideration, a Porsche, in comparison, a tablespoon of petrol split onto the raod has a greater determental effect that a Porsche driven from London to Edinburgh.

 

[editor]

In consideration, a Porsche, in comparison, a tablespoon of petrol split onto the raod has a greater determental effect that a Porsche driven from London to Edinburgh.

Not sure what this "tablespoon" stuff is all about, but what's your opinion about the well-documented increased risk to pedestrians and fellow drivers brought about by people driving 4 x 4s?

 

[subversplat]

A lot of "4x4s" actually operate in 2WD mode most of the time for precisely the reasons you mention. My old Landrover Lightweight is usually just a 2WD car, driving the back wheels. I only use 4wd (and/or the low ratio gears) if stuck in sand or mud, or on a steep and slippery hilly road.

Giles..

I always thought Land Rover were one of the stalwarts of full-time 4x4s, but fair dues if you've got a modified one that is nicer to the world, but surely that's generally the reserve of somebody who's genuinely thought about their motor and what they want it to do - very much unlike people that buy them as a fashion-mobile where the most the 4x4 ability is going to do is help them climb an 8" curb. I'd think that most people who took such an interest in having a 4x4 would be alright with taking an extra test to make sure they could use it properly, no?

I'm not against 4x4 motors on principle. Far from it! Having lived on some very muddy traveller sites in my life, having a mate with a Landcruiser has meant that my home doesn't sink into the earth I'm just against the huge amount of misinformation spread (like SUVs being safer in all situations, which they're rather not) and that it's somehow fashionable to be driving a horribly wasteful 4x4 in place of something perfectly adequate like a Citroen Picasso.

 

[Descartes]

Not sure what this "tablespoon" stuff is all about,

All the accusations of gas guzzling and comments concerning emission damage... The Porsche 4x4 is a clear target for the anti brigade.

but what's your opinion about the well-documented increased risk to pedestrians and fellow drivers brought about by people driving 4 x 4s?

Inflammatory, to say the least.. the wording invariable adds 4x4 to the list of vehicles that are dangerous... but ignores the fact that all vehicles are dangerous to pedestrians. A lack of figures to confirm casts doubts on their veracity.

If you want to put forward an argument on 4x4, a co relation between the number of accidnet where 4x4 were involved and not the supposition that a 4x4 could or would cause more damage becuse the words 4x4 could be suberstituted for any type of vehicle on the road.

For example, sports cars built with a large body content of fibre glass or plastic 'will' cause increased damage and injuries to children unde rthe age of 14. But this does not go on to establish the truth of the statement by quoting the number of accidents or incidents involving fibre glass or plastic bodied vehicles with children of or under the age of...e tc etc.. but it makes good reading as a derogatory statement about sports cars. Suddenly, the public become aware of another danger to their children and swooosh ... the safety crowd are off and running with the wording of an opinion.

The 4x4 is seen as a target that cannot defend itself, but the increased sales world wide under mine the protests of fashion object, over engineered because the cry of over engineered immediately brings to mind a safer and better vehicle. Things won't drop off because it is overengineered, of course people want a vehilce that stands out from the crowd, all part of the ego and to make statements of fashion object... double whammy, people like the description.... self defeating, all the cries against the 4x4 are helping to sell more.... QED.

The cries of waste of money, costs etc, well, to be seen driving one automatically means yu must have money to drive one... Ohhh must have one and the friends and neighbours will now we have made it...

Fabulous reverse publicity. .. don't buy it unless you can afford it.. everyone wants one to show they CAN afford it...

This is an excert from the BSI site:

John Lennox, the transport expert for BSI, announced in his speech on Corporate Killing at the Society of Operational Engineers annual conference last week that more must be done in terms of ensuring occupational health and safety (H&S) whilst driving vehicles.

John cited the unnerving statistic that 33 per cent of all road traffic accidents, that is to say crashes, involve people driving FOR work.

"Presently, the 'mobile workforce': sales staff, company reps, van drivers etc, by the nature of the job has low visibility and as a result is not seen as a high priority in terms of H&S by businesses and other organisations." says John Lennox.

Wooow, ban all saleman and women.. immediately cut the accident rate by 33% Make all Ford and Vauxhalls stronger and safer... but, it is a massive generalisation. it does not go on to defferentiate the type of journeys just that the people that cover the most mileage will have the most accidents.... DUH... defeats all logic, drive more have more accidents... the people spending hours and hours in their cars... etc etc.

The motor car is seen as the second most expensive object most people buy and it attracts all the attention, motor magazines prosper, TV programs develop their own personalities, all just driving and talking about Motor cars... so any section or model will attract atention be it good or bad depends on the needs of the moment.

 

[TonkaToy]

Nah. Just slap a fucking huge charge on those selfish tossers in 4x4s/SUVs.

LOL. If a 4x4 owner stopped to let you cross the road, would you thank him/her ?

Would you accept a lift of a 4x4 owner? (You never know you could steal some lose change down the seats and swap it with used chewing gum).

4x4's aren't my thing, but I don't see the need for an extra congestion charge on them.

 

[editor]

LOL. If a 4x4 owner stopped to let you cross the road, would you thank him/her ?

Would you accept a lift of a 4x4 owner? (You never know you could steal some lose change down the seats and swap it with used chewing gum).

If all you've got to add to this debate is moronic comments like the above, kindly stay out of this thread.

 

[editor]

If you want to put forward an argument on 4x4, a co relation between the number of accidnet where 4x4 were involved and not the supposition that a 4x4 could or would cause more damage becuse the words 4x4 could be suberstituted for any type of vehicle on the road.

There is ample documentation of the increased danger presented by 4x4s.

UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage. Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident.

Darren McCauley, head of car insurance at Churchill, says: 'Our data shows that 4x4s are more likely to be involved in urban accidents.

The RAC Foundation says, "You could blame some of the higher accident rate for 4x4s on size. Drivers who are new to these cars might not realise how wide they are. There is also psychology involved - if you feel more secure inside a big 4x4, you might drive with less care than you should."
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=395321&in_page_id=4

People in small cars are 12 times more likely to be killed than those in a 4x4 when the vehicles collide, according to the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL). The study found that the rise in sales of 4x4s and people-carriers was causing more than 20 extra deaths and serious injuries a year among people in small cars.

The research provides the first evidence in Britain that the popularity of big vehicles is a key factor in rising road deaths
http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/safety.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1534514,00.html

The 4x4 is seen as a target that cannot defend itself,

What utter, utter tosh. The SUV is not some poor defenceless little thing being unfairly picked on by nasty environmentalists.

It is a product of a powerful $$$$ industry.

It is the pedestrians and fellow road users who are unable to defend themselves against this unsafe, dangerous brand of vehicle.

 

[jæd]

If all you've got to add to this debate is moronic comments like the above, kindly stay out of this thread.

"Moronic" comments and "selfish" "tossers". Not an emotional subject at all...!

 

[editor]

"Moronic" comments and "selfish" "tossers". Not an emotional subject at all...!

Oh come on. His post was utter drivel.

People are entitled to feel passionate about the subject, but posting up wildly irrelevant drivel about "accepting lifts off 4x4 owners", "stealing some lose (sic) change" and "swapping it with used chewing gum" is just disruptive bullshit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A car free city would not be "bliss". It would be a dead city. A hell of a lot of economic activity would simply relocate elsewhere, rather like has happened in loads of town centres where parking has been made so difficult and expensive that people doing "serious" shopping prefer to go to out-of-town centres where they can park outside.

Giles..

You're so right, Giles.

After all, London was absolutely DEAD for the 1900+ years of its' existence that motorised vehicles didn't exist, wasn't it?

Perhaps, contrary to your doom-laden thesis, "business" would do what it claims to be good at and adapt to new circumstances?

 

[Giles]

You're so right, Giles.

After all, London was absolutely DEAD for the 1900+ years of its' existence that motorised vehicles didn't exist, wasn't it?

Perhaps, contrary to your doom-laden thesis, "business" would do what it claims to be good at and adapt to new circumstances?

Before there were motor vehicles, there was mass horse-drawn transport - which caused pollution of its own - in Victorian days, there serious worries about what to do with all the horse-manure in the streets!

My point is that if you attempt to "pedestrianise" large chunks of city centres, you end up with places that are just tourist attractions and no longer living, working city centres. A lot of the real business will adapt - it will move elsewhere.

Giles..

 

[editor]

My point is that if you attempt to "pedestrianise" large chunks of city centres, you end up with places that are just tourist attractions and no longer living, working city centres. A lot of the real business will adapt - it will move elsewhere.

Why not just make the big city shopping streets bus/tram/taxi/delivery vehicle* only?

(*vans only allowed between certain hours)

 

[rich!]

Why not just make the big city shopping streets bus/tram/taxi/delivery vehicle* only?

(*vans only allowed between certain hours)

Worked for the ancient Romans - pretty much the first civilisation to restrict deliveries to nighttime hours...

 

[HackneyE9]

FWD OWNERS 'MORE LIKELY TO USE PHONES WHILE DRIVING'
By Peter Woodman, PA Transport Correspondent
Owners of four-wheel drive vehicles are more likely to flout mobile phone and seatbelt laws than other drivers, it was revealed today.
A study of driving habits showed showed that drivers of 4x4 off-roaders were four times more likely to use a hand-held mobile while behind the wheel than other other motorists, a report in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) said.
The 4x4 drivers were also more likely not to comply with seatbelt regulations.
The study took place at three different sites in Hammersmith, west London.
A total of 38,182 normal cars and 2,944 4x4 vehicles were studied. Overall, 15.3% of drivers were not wearing seatbelts and 2.5% were using hand-held mobiles while at the wheel.
The first observations were carried out in February 2004, within the "grace" period regarding use of hand-held mobile phones, during which police only cautioned offenders.
Observations were repeated one month later, after police began to impose penalties for non-compliance with the new law.
Levels of non-compliance with both laws were slightly higher in the penalty phase of observation than during the grace period, and breaking one law was associated with an increased likelihood of breaking the other.
The BMJ study authors said: "Our data show a worryingly high level of non-compliance with laws on seatbelts and hand-held mobile phones by drivers in London, and almost no effect of the end of the grace period on the use of a mobile phone while driving.
"Our observation that almost one in six drivers was not wearing a seatbelt is a major public health concern."

 

[Dan U]

blimey, 12 pages

4x4 = shit for london. getters?

 

[Descartes]

Don't yer just love the wording......are more likely.... note the asociation... A total of 38,182 normal cars and 2,944 4x4 vehicles were studied. Overall, 15.3% of drivers were not wearing seatbelts and 2.5% were using hand-held mobiles while at the wheel.

Overall 15.3% and 2.5% total of 38k and 2,900 isn't that a toal of 41,126 vehicle, the percentage give 15.3 and 2.5% of the overall gives..... 6292.2 and 1028 but without the exact groupings... flawed argument.

Our observation that almost one in six drivers was not wearing a seatbelt is a major public health concern."

almost one in six... one in 6.5 people, please. but driving what vehicles...

But, wait a moment: a voice in the wilderness:

Paul Everett, from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said this style of vehicle had become very popular because they were "useful and flexible."

"The environmental performance of your average 4x4 is no worse than a large saloon or people carrier," he told BBC News.

"In many cases the safety performance of these vehicles is better than many other vehicles on the road.

"People do find the raised driving style to be safer, they see more of the road, feel more in control and in many cases drive more responsibly."

What...