Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge

[editor]

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.

Well, there's a fabulously unbiased source for you.

 

[Descartes]

Another voice of reason:
The anti-4x4 movement has no reasonable foundation. For every excuse they use to "justify" their obsessive hatred, the worst performer is not a 4x4 and many 4x4s fare better than many non-4x4 types. For example, many 4x4 types return more than 30 mpg while many non-4x4 types return much less. It's the same for every excuse the anti-4x4 movement cite. The anti-4x4 movement don't campaign against "gas guzzlers", vehicles with large footprints, etc; they campaign only against 4x4s while ignoring the many vehicles that return fewer miles to the gallon, take up more space, etc.

The anti-4x4 movement can't define in measurable terms what it is they are against. For example, on the web-site of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s [sic] is a picture and words to the effect of "this is what we mean". Nowhere do they give a measurable benchmark that can be used to determine whether a particular vehicle is, or is not, a "4x4".

The only way they can "define" what they are against is by physical appearance, and that suggests they are against 4x4s because they don't like the look of them. Because they can't define what they are against in measurable terms, any anti-4x4 legislation must be based on subjective criteria - you would or would not pay extra taxes etc. depending on whether some bureaucrat likes the look of your car!

It gets more perverse (and you couldn't make this up!) ... the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s say they are not against 4x4s! On their website, they say, "We aren't concerned about four-wheel drive in itself ..." Now, 4x4 means a four wheeled vehicle driven by all four wheels, so any campaign that "isn't concerned about four-wheel drive" is not, by definition, against 4x4s.

I suggest that the anti-4x4 movement don't know exactly what they are against and I have to ask how then can anyone else know!

So, the anti-4x4 campaign has absolutely no reasonable foundation. Having spoken to several of the anti-4x4 movement, the real reasons appear to be misplaced jealousy and class hatred. I strongly suspect that the anti-4x4 campaign is an excuse to incite social hatred against the sector of society that its leaders associate with 4x4 ownership. As such, that campaign is evil, as abominable as any other unjust prejudice or discrimination, and its leaders reprehensible.

Wooow

 

[oicur0t]

So, the anti-4x4 campaign has absolutely no reasonable foundation. Having spoken to several of the anti-4x4 movement, the real reasons appear to be misplaced jealousy and class hatred. I strongly suspect that the anti-4x4 campaign is an excuse to incite social hatred against the sector of society that its leaders associate with 4x4 ownership. As such, that campaign is evil, as abominable as any other unjust prejudice or discrimination, and its leaders reprehensible

teehee, you are a wag!

 

[Descartes]

There is an anti 4x4 article in todays Independent, ... what a crock full of smelly stuff......

When comments such as : Department of Transport, 2005

Drivers of 4x4s are most likely to have been in an argument with traffic wardens (22 per cent), compared with 6 per cent of saloon car drivers.

ROFLMAO that just about sez it all...

I cannot think of anything so totally absurd to back up s supposed serious article, brings the whole thing into disrepute...

The our good friends ... Alliance Against Urban 4x4s

Range Rovers with a 4.4-litre engine have an urban mpg of 12.2 and emit 389g carbon dioxide per kilometre. In contrast, a Ford Mondeo 2-litre fuel-injected saloon has an urban mpg of 25 and emits 190g carbon dioxide. A Smart car emits 138g carbon dioxide.

Why not compare it with a 16 litre Scania, not there is a gas guzzling beast,,,, four times larger than the Range Rover, it makes the Range Riover look like a Esso Economy run winner.

The problem, it's just jumping on a ... 4x4 band wagon.. LOL...

 

[Yossarian]

<tries to take a wild stab at guessing what kind of vehicle Descartes drives>

 

[editor]

So, the anti-4x4 campaign has absolutely no reasonable foundation. Having spoken to several of the anti-4x4 movement, the real reasons appear to be misplaced jealousy and class hatred.

Any chance of you addressing the issue that 4x4s are demonstrably more dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users?

 

[fredfelt]

Another voice of reason:
The anti-4x4 movement has no reasonable foundation. For every excuse they use to "justify" their obsessive hatred, the worst performer is not a 4x4 and many 4x4s fare better than many non-4x4 types. For example, many 4x4 types return more than 30 mpg while many non-4x4 types return much less. It's the same for every excuse the anti-4x4 movement cite. The anti-4x4 movement don't campaign against "gas guzzlers", vehicles with large footprints, etc; they campaign only against 4x4s while ignoring the many vehicles that return fewer miles to the gallon, take up more space, etc.

The anti-4x4 movement can't define in measurable terms what it is they are against. For example, on the web-site of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s [sic] is a picture and words to the effect of "this is what we mean". Nowhere do they give a measurable benchmark that can be used to determine whether a particular vehicle is, or is not, a "4x4".

The only way they can "define" what they are against is by physical appearance, and that suggests they are against 4x4s because they don't like the look of them. Because they can't define what they are against in measurable terms, any anti-4x4 legislation must be based on subjective criteria - you would or would not pay extra taxes etc. depending on whether some bureaucrat likes the look of your car!

It gets more perverse (and you couldn't make this up!) ... the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s say they are not against 4x4s! On their website, they say, "We aren't concerned about four-wheel drive in itself ..." Now, 4x4 means a four wheeled vehicle driven by all four wheels, so any campaign that "isn't concerned about four-wheel drive" is not, by definition, against 4x4s.

I suggest that the anti-4x4 movement don't know exactly what they are against and I have to ask how then can anyone else know!

So, the anti-4x4 campaign has absolutely no reasonable foundation. Having spoken to several of the anti-4x4 movement, the real reasons appear to be misplaced jealousy and class hatred. I strongly suspect that the anti-4x4 campaign is an excuse to incite social hatred against the sector of society that its leaders associate with 4x4 ownership. As such, that campaign is evil, as abominable as any other unjust prejudice or discrimination, and its leaders reprehensible.

Wooow

Hey Descartes

Go way back to the begining of this thread. I recall the subject is something about cars with an emmision of over a certain threshold being charged an extra congestion charge. This is a clear defination and can easily be applied to all newly resestered vehicles

It provides a clear signal to anyone who buys a new vehicle that if they want to polute more they have to pay more. 4 x 4 vehicles generally have a level of emmisions over this threashold. And as it happens they are fastest growing niche of cars which have emmisions over this threashold. Cars which produce more polution than necessary are of no benefit to anyone.

The aim of this tax, and how it is planned to be applied is clear to me.

 

[editor]

There is an anti 4x4 article in todays Independent, ... what a crock full of smelly stuff......

Be sure to list the areas where they've got their facts wrong.


Meanwhile, some excerpts:

The researchers found drivers of 4x4s were almost four times more likely to be seen using hand-held mobiles. They were also less likely to use seat belts.

Last October the BMJ published an American study showing that 4x4s were more dangerous to pedestrians than normal cars. Tests showed that people who were hit by the vehicles in accidents were four times more likely to die than those hit by other cars.

Dr Walker said: "In general 4x4s reduce the risk for their occupants but increase the risk for everyone else. In using a 4x4, instead of a normal car, one's chance of death or serious injury falls by four in 1,000 but the chance of killing or injuring others rises by 11 in 1,000, with a resulting cost to the community."

f a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed than if they were hit by a saloon car.

New Scientist

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1095828.ece

 

[jæd]

Drivers of 4x4s are most likely to have been in an argument with traffic wardens (22 per cent), compared with 6 per cent of saloon car drivers.

Ooh... So... Obviously driving a 4x4 causes road rage, innit...

 

[jæd]

Go way back to the begining of this thread. I recall the subject is something about cars with an emmision of over a certain threshold being charged an extra congestion charge. This is a clear defination and can easily be applied to all newly resestered vehicles

It provides a clear signal to anyone who buys a new vehicle that if they want to polute more they have to pay more. 4 x 4 vehicles generally have a level of emmisions over this threashold. And as it happens they are fastest growing niche of cars which have emmisions over this threashold. Cars which produce more polution than necessary are of no benefit to anyone.

Well... This might apply to older 4x4 but aren't "greener" 4x4s being manufactered...!

 

[kingmaker]

"The researchers found drivers of 4x4s were almost four times more likely to be seen using hand-held mobiles. They were also less likely to use seat belts.
"

You are not seriously suggesting these people would miraculously start wearing seat belts and switching off their phones if they drove normal cars

 

[trashpony]

You are not seriously suggesting these people would miraculously start wearing seat belts and switching off their phones if they drove normal cars

I think he's suggesting that drivers of 4x4s are more likely to be stupid tossers than most drivers actually. Well - that was my interpretation of the research

 

[editor]

Well... This might apply to older 4x4 but aren't "greener" 4x4s being manufactered...!

Still nowhere near as "green" as a car that hasn't been monstrously over-engineered and bulked out in the name of fashion and style.

Oh, and 'safety' at the expense of everyone else.

 

[kingmaker]

I think he's suggesting that drivers of 4x4s are more likely to be stupid tossers than most drivers actually.

Might be true- but they are still gonna be stupid tossers in Beamers or people carriers or whatever........

 

[editor]

You are not seriously suggesting these people would miraculously start wearing seat belts and switching off their phones if they drove normal cars

The research suggests that the inflated sense of security brought on by people driving these dangerous tanks around town might make some of their drivers less concerned about safety.

If they were, for example, pedalling a bike around town instead, I wouldn't be surprised if they started paying a bit more attention.

 

[kingmaker]

The research suggests that the inflated sense of security brought on by people driving these dangerous tanks around town might make some of their drivers less concerned about safety.

Maybe, but I think it has more to do with the type of people that choose 4x4s in the first place......, but I hear what you are saying)

 

[fredfelt]

Does any know anything about 4 x 4's having to be technically classed as trucks in the US and the EU as in general they fail car emission thresholds?

 

[scott_forester]

Can't see how anyone could argue effectively against it actually...

When you look into this Ken isn't suggesting higher congestion charging just on 4x4's he's actually saying he's going to base it on carbon emissions to paraphrase he said 'if a car has more than double the average carbon emissions you should pay twice, if more then three times you pay triple and so on'

If this is what he does, whats the average carbon emission? And does this mean black cab's, trucks and old cars will pay more as well?

 

[jæd]

Well... "When you see someone trying to manoeuvre it round the school gates, you have to think, you are a complete idiot" can be reported as "KEN CALLS 4x4 DRIVERS IDIOTS", and thats a much better soundbite.

 

[sorter]

the majority of you are class snobs, and know NOTHING about engines, cars, emmissions, 4 wheel drive systems or owning a 'practical' motor.

research people for gods sake, and learn that there are as many cars as damaging to the planet, as there are 4x4s that are good to it!!

if you have a problem with people swanning around in a 60k range rover then just say so, instead of hiding behind the 4x4s are planet killers 'bandwagon'. distribute your hate towards M-B s class, 7 series, imprezza, lancer, RS4, S6, M3, M5, M6, C36, E55, SL55, XJ, XK, 350Z, Alfa Romeo, Bentley, Rolls, 911, 996, Boxster, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Maserati owners etc etc.............

i can list 4x4s that do over 35mpg if you wish.............

decide where your argument is coming from, and stick to it. please.

some of you sound like dicks...........

 

[editor]

research people for gods sake, and learn that there are as many cars as damaging to the planet, as there are 4x4s that are good to it!!

Tell me how an over-enginnered, over-sized, resource-hogging 4x4 is "good for the planet" please.

if you have a problem with people swanning around in a 60k range rover then just say so, instead of hiding behind the 4x4s are planet killers 'bandwagon'. distribute your hate towards M-B s class, 7 series, imprezza, lancer, RS4, S6, M3, M5, M6, C36, E55, SL55, XJ, XK, 350Z, Alfa Romeo, Bentley, Rolls, 911, 996, Boxster, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Maserati owners etc etc............

Thing is, they're not the fastest growing sector of cars in the UK are they? That's why SUVs and 4x4s are being rightly targeted.

 

[laptop]

Does any know anything about 4 x 4's having to be technically classed as trucks in the US and the EU as in general they fail car emission thresholds?

I'm sure that the manufacturers invented SUVs as something that would technically be classed as a "truck" - in order to evade US emissions standards.

That is, to be able to sell vehicles to little pricks who think gas-guzzling has something to do with potency.

You see the difference?

 

[TonkaToy]

Any chance of you addressing the issue that 4x4s are demonstrably more dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users?

Cars are more dangerous than bikes. If you got your own way, you would only start to campaign for ever smaller and smaller cars until there was none at all.

Busses are way more dangerous than 4x4s..a mate of mine knows, he was knocked over by one and it was the bus drivers fault.

Another friend of mine almost lost both her legs and spent over a year in a wheelchair thanks to a bus she was waiting, knocking her from the bus stop straight through a shop window.

I don't see the reason for singling out 4x4s for their size, when there is far larger vehicles on the road.

 

[editor]

Cars are more dangerous than bikes. If you got your own way, you would only start to campaign for ever smaller and smaller cars until there was none at all.

I'll tell you what. When you've stopped trying to shove your stupid words down my mouth, I might just bother to engage with your 'points.'

Busses are way more dangerous than 4x4s..a mate of mine knows, he was knocked over by one and it was the bus drivers fault.

Irrelevant drivel.

 

[TonkaToy]

I'll tell you what. When you've stopped trying to shove your stupid words down my mouth, I might just bother to engage with your 'points.'
Irrelevant drivel.

Alright then, on a personal level I'll let you off the charge that you would campaign until there are no cars on the road, but you do see my point though don't you. If you carry over the logic that 4x4s are more dangerous simply because they are bigger than normal cars, then surely people would want to keep up the campaign against cars with the exact same argument that they are more dangerous than bikes. Just because one vehicle happens to me more dangerous than the other, I still see no logical reason to tax it or ban it from city centres.

 

[Descartes]

Any chance of you addressing the issue that 4x4s are demonstrably more dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users?

The arugment and statistics used to 'prop up' this argument are using the old and original American 4x4, the type of chassis and body construction has now been supeceded by a monocoque and integral body and floor pan method of assembly. This allows progressively collapsable impact areas and undermines the argument of the danger to the pederstrian being sufficiently greater than the car. But, any car and 4x4 of similar weight will create similar damamge on impact. Simple, equation of momentum, mass weight/speed/impact.

Now, the argument of bumper height, do a simple test, walk up to say a, Chrysler jeep, check front bumper height, stand alongside and just hold a finger aagainst your leg as to the top plane of the bumper.... then check that against.. say a Rover metro...

For a normal traffic accident, rear of the Metro car and the front of following Jeep, hmmm, there are almost identical, Try it, this high lights and contradicts the misconceptions about the supposed difference between the vehicles.

The present range of 4x4 built for the European market do not have the huge diffeence seen in the States or Australia, between AWD/4WD/4x4 derivatives.
The methods of construction, materials used and research have taken the 4x4 away from its original truck sources towards the car markets.

The use of modern plastic in impact zones, the integral body and floor pan both contribute to greatly reducing the dangers to pedestrian with the modern AWD/4WD/4X4. The weight saving has seen a dramatic improvement in fuel savings, the greater use and efficiency of the diesel engine has, again, reduced the emissions and proved to be more environmentally friendly than a huge number of vehicles.

The huge number of Totyota/Honda/Nissan that are replacing the heavier GMC/Ford/ Chrysler units contradicts the out of date statements of the anti brigade. Massive imporovements in production and purpose built vehicles by the major manufacturers have seen vast iprovements in the ' crumple zone' with reduced danger to pedestrians and

Lets just agree on one point, it doesn't matter what vehicle hits a pedestrian, it is dangerous and will lead to fatalities.

Now, instead of the pro guys continually have to prove the point, where is the up to date research and figures that contribute or reinforce the argument that 4x4 hare a 'hazard'

Please, up to date and not all that supposition stuff, and not a set of doctors sponsored by the anti brigade.... have you everknown a sponsor to be proved to be the bad guy in their own research....

Hmm, didn't think so.

 

[Dougal]

personally i would build a force field around the M25 that repelled all non-essential 4x4's..

but i guess this might be a start

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5075722.stm

What about little landrovers and such like that are fourwheel drive and pollute no more than your average car? Surely you want to link engine size to tax not the amount of wheel drive? Just a thought like.

 

[editor]

Alright then, on a personal level I'll let you off the charge that you would campaign until there are no cars on the road, but you do see my point though don't you.

No, I don't actually.

 

[editor]

Any chance of you addressing the issue that 4x4s are demonstrably more dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users?

Can't you read?

UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage.[2] Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident.[3]

Transport Research Laboratory blames the increasing mismatch between the size of vehicles on the road for a 1% rise in people killed in accidents last year. Passengers in 'super minis' were 12 times more likely to be killed than people in a 4x4 when these vehicles collided. The principal factor is the extra weight of the larger car, as well as extra height, which can override the bumpers and side impact protection on the smaller vehicle.
http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/safety.htm

# 4x4 is twice as likely to be involved in a fatal rollover as an ordinary car.[5]
# If a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed.[6]
# In a side-impact collision with a 4x4, a car driver is around 4 times more likely to be killed than if they were hit by another car.[7]

PEDESTRIAN HIT BY A LARGE 4X4 VEHICLE IS MORE THAN TWICE AS LIKELY TO BE KILLED THAN IF HIT BY A NORMAL SIZED CAR
Researchers from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rowan University in America discovered that somebody hit by a large 4x4 vehicle would be more than twice as likely to die as someone hit by a normal sized car [2].
http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=267

 

[fredfelt]

the majority of you are class snobs, and know NOTHING about engines, cars, emmissions, 4 wheel drive systems or owning a 'practical' motor.

research people for gods sake, and learn that there are as many cars as damaging to the planet, as there are 4x4s that are good to it!!

if you have a problem with people swanning around in a 60k range rover then just say so, instead of hiding behind the 4x4s are planet killers 'bandwagon'. distribute your hate towards M-B s class, 7 series, imprezza, lancer, RS4, S6, M3, M5, M6, C36, E55, SL55, XJ, XK, 350Z, Alfa Romeo, Bentley, Rolls, 911, 996, Boxster, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Maserati owners etc etc.............

i can list 4x4s that do over 35mpg if you wish.............

decide where your argument is coming from, and stick to it. please.

some of you sound like dicks...........

Sorter

Take a look at the story which prompted this thread. I quote a section

They want owners of cars producing more than 225g/km of CO2 to pay £20 a day - £12 more than everyone else.​

This is not a direct attack on 4 x 4's. It just happens that, along with other poluting vehicles, 4 x 4's fall under the extra congestion charge which is being lobbied for.

4 x 4's are part of the problem. They just happen to be the biggest growing niche of cars and therefore require more attention. Rightly so Urban 4 x 4's have become short hand for highly poluting vehicles. In the same way a 'Gas Guzzler' technically includes some vehicles with are deemed acceptable to consume lots of fuel, such as lorries

Most people here will agree that most guzzlers are more of a problem than more efficient vehicles. BUT NOT ALWAYS

On another note Sorter, many people on this thread argue from different angles. Don't expect everyone 'stick to' the same argument. If I present a different argument that you expected I'm sorry for sounding 'like a dick' - what ever that sounds like.