Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge

[Dubversion]

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.

what toss. Trains are also much more dangerous than buses. Etc etc.

 

[kingmaker]

what toss. Trains are also much more dangerous than buses. Etc etc.

Not true. When was the last time a train knocked down a cyclist or pedestrian?

Trains are one of the safest forms of transport there is. It's just that when it goes wrong it goes wrong *bigtime* and so you get the big banner headlines.

 

[Dubversion]

Not true. When was the last time a train knocked down a cyclist or pedestrian?

Trains are one of the safest forms of transport there is. It's just that when it goes wrong it goes wrong *bigtime* and so you get the big banner headlines.

that was kind of my point. I didn't make it particularly seriously, because what i was responding to was such utter bullshit

 

[Descartes]

People quoting figures from mystical sources are more likely to be fixated about non sensical problems

People most likely to pursue 4x4 vehicle had dogs as pets during childhood.

People demanding figures about 4x4 are most likely to ride bicycles

 

[editor]

People quoting figures from mystical sources are more likely to be fixated about non sensical problems

So you don't think SUVs and 4x4s do any harm to the environment, you don't think that some of them present a greater danger to pedestrians and fellow drivers alike and you don't think that driving over-engineered, over-sized chunks of gas-guzzling metal around the urban environment has any negative impact at all, yes?

 

[Descartes]

So you don't think SUVs and 4x4s do any harm to the environment

In comparison to what? In a direct test with the 19 litre Scania truck the toyota 4x4 was most likel;y to give a 600% cleaner burn engine emission

you don't think that some of them present a greater danger to pedestrians and fellow drivers alike

In direct comparison tests between Humvees and Nissans on Iraqia road it was most likely that the Nissan in head on collisons with pedestrians would most likely only require short term hospilisation. The Humvee casualties were most likely to require extensive surgery and prolonged hospitalistion.

you don't think that driving over-engineered, over-sized chunks of gas-guzzling metal around the urban environment has any negative impact at all

It is most likely that the expression negative impact is an inexact mathamatical expression and could be onen to mis-intrepretation and misconstrude by uninformed by standers.

In local tests it is most likely that errosion by water leaks from underwater pipes will contribute by a sum in excess of £10bn over the next ten years The subsidense of building foundations and roads. This is most likely to exceed the projected figures for errosion to steps and pavements of tourist sights over the next ten years. Estimated figures will be supplemented by an increase in the charges for the sixe of prams and the number of children contained within each. Prams are most likely to cause injuries to ankles and knees than any other pavement riding vehicle. Legislation will most likely be introduced to curtail the weight and number of wheels. Parents with more than one child in a pram should expect to faces charges in escess of £2500 per year to subsidise the maintenance cost.

It is most likely that water shortage will contribute to the a loss of over 2000 acre in the capital of vegitation and essential life supporting oxygen converting foiliage.

It is most likely that the growth in the restrurant trade will directly assist in feeding and the up keep of the rat infestation within the capital. It is most likely that the present figure of more rats than human in the capital will be doubled withint the next five years.

The most likely moral to this array of useless information is that, Buy a 'kin 4x4, it's the only way you will get out of the capital. All the rats, the bodies from lack of fresh air and the building falling down and the roads collasping.

Make sure it's big, powerful and seats more than enough, because it is likely that your neighbour will want a lift as well.

 

[editor]

So you don't think SUVs and 4x4s do any harm to the environment
In comparison to what? .

In comparison with a car built to reflect the fact that:
(a) city centres are increasingly crowded
(b) over-sized SUVs/4x4s contribute needlessly to pollution levels
(c) we should be more environmentally friendly and use less materials, not more
(d) big cars have been proven to be more dangerous to pedestrians and other drivers
(e) we should be working to reduce fuel consumption (and pollution) by making smaller, lighter cars more appropriate to the urban environment, not building pointlessly heavy fashion statements

In local tests it is most likely that errosion by water leaks from underwater pipes will contribute by a sum in excess of £10bn over the next ten years

Utterly utterly irrelevant, issue-evading tosh.

 

[Descartes]

No, it only proves that as obsession go, you are in the forefront over 4x4s.

The amount of plastic recycleable materials being used in car manufacturer,

The failure to consider that the city centre has a congestion charge zone that is actually costing Londoners money and the present publicity drive to dscriminate ageinst 4x4 owners is nthing more than a ' smoke screen' and, in all honesty, I am surprised you have been sucked into a very badly and misinformed bunch of tree huggers.
I can present facts 24/7 and you will continue to post argumentative question beased on little more than supposition and ignorance.

My last post was an attempt to inject some humour but like all obsessed individuals you failed abysmally to see the ridculous position you have asumed over this.

With that, i will leave you to play with your dinkey toys, Oh by the way.. the rats and the water problem, the loss of greenery in the capital is a real and growing problem... but hey, when there are 4x4 to pick who gives a tinker's cuss.

 

[editor]

I can present facts 24/7 and you will continue to post argumentative question beased on little more than supposition and ignorance. .

All this bluster, personal insults and off topic excursions into unrelated topics really isn't covering up the paucity of your own piss-weak argument, you know.

But here's a simple question for you:

Which is better for the city streets and the environment: a small, quiet, compact, lightweight, fuel-efficient car designed for the narrow streets or a needlessly oversized, needlessly tall and heavy beast of a machine with a huge engine and comically massive tyres designed for ascending mountain paths and traversing muddy plains?

 

[oryx]

just one car-user's view...

Which is better for the city streets and the environment: a small, quiet, compact, lightweight, fuel-efficient car designed for the narrow streets or a needlessly oversized, needlessly tall and heavy beast of a machine with a huge engine and comically massive tyres designed for ascending mountain paths and traversing muddy plains?

It's a no-brainer (actually, I hate that phrase!)

I want a small, quiet, compact, lightweight, fuel-efficient car for my next car (unless I get a permanent office-based job, which I don't really want to). I need a car for work as it will usually involve evening meetings & being in one borough in the morning & another in the afternoon.

I feel really annoyed that it is hard to buy such a car (I'd really like a smaller & considerably cheaper version of a Toyota Prius). It's appalling that the sales of large 4 x 4 cars has increased at a time when people actually want more ecologically sound cars.

More has to be done in terms of disincentives for 4 x 4s and other large ecologically unsound cars. An increased congestion charge is a good start. There is nowhere near enough discrepancy in the taxing of smaller, more fuel-effiecient cars as opposed to larger ones.

I think you should need two licences to drive a 4 x 4 - one to show you can drive (an ability sadly lacking in many aggressive, mobile-phone-using 4 x 4 drivers) and one to show you need it to get up a dirt track to your sheep farm or similar.

 

[editor]

Problem: the world's heating up, there's thousands being killed over oil, exhaust fumes are contributing to global warming, there's more and more traffic on the streets, the cities are getting more crowded, we're trying trying to get more people to walk and cycle, so what shall we do?

Hell, let's create a pointlessly over-sized, resource-hoggin', fuel consumin', needlessly pollutin', pedestrian intimidatin', extra dangerous fashion statement on oversized wheels!

Way to go!

 

[oryx]

fashion statement on oversized wheels![/I]

Airbrushed nails, fake tan, footballer's wife wannabee fashion statement.

You have to laugh at them, really.

 

[fredfelt]

The irony

A Land Rover which is often parked near to where I work has a poster in the back window entitled ‘Action on Asthma’ - the poster is calling for more support for people with Asthma.

Funny how the driver of this urban 4 x 4 is not capable of making the link between emissions from highly polluting vehicles and peoples health.

Cycling to work the issue is in my face every day! On days of high pressure I have to take the long, off road route to work to avoid traffic pollution so I’m able to breathe!

Have all your arguments about personal freedom having the right to pollute etc, but please if you are in the position to buy a new car; for the sake of our health, my lungs and the sake of the planet buy an efficient one. Better still work out a way to live with out a car.

I really don’t see how this argument is a difficult one.

 

[TonkaToy]

what toss. Trains are also much more dangerous than buses. Etc etc.

Trains aren't on the road. They kinda run on tracks mate.

 

[TonkaToy]

A Land Rover which is often parked near to where I work has a poster in the back window entitled ‘Action on Asthma’ - the poster is calling for more support for people with Asthma.

Funny how the driver of this urban 4 x 4 is not capable of making the link between emissions from highly polluting vehicles and peoples health.

Cycling to work the issue is in my face every day! On days of high pressure I have to take the long, off road route to work to avoid traffic pollution so I’m able to breathe!

Have all your arguments about personal freedom having the right to pollute etc, but please if you are in the position to buy a new car; for the sake of our health, my lungs and the sake of the planet buy an efficient one. Better still work out a way to live with out a car.

I really don’t see how this argument is a difficult one.

If you want to argue the toss about pollution then fair enough, but this thread is about 4x4s.

 

[TonkaToy]

Problem: the world's heating up, there's thousands being killed over oil, exhaust fumes are contributing to global warming, there's more and more traffic on the streets, the cities are getting more crowded, we're trying trying to get more people to walk and cycle, so what shall we do?

Hell, let's create a pointlessly over-sized, resource-hoggin', fuel consumin', needlessly pollutin', pedestrian intimidatin', extra dangerous fashion statement on oversized wheels!

Way to go!

Erm, I can see your point about polution. I would like to see cars being more efficient, but there are both cars that are bad polluters while there are good 4x4s.

As for your stats about 4x4s being involved in more accidents - well these days there is a lot of 4x4s and they are driven by certain types of people.

A 4x4 once went into the back of my car. It was mother on the way back from home with her kids and she turned around to tell her kids to stop fighting in the back....then wack!

They are no harder to drive than any other car and I don't believe that their drivers drive any different because of the type of car that they driving.

Larger Volvos are built like tanks and their owners know it - yet the stats aren't high for them in accidents.

There are plenty of larger vehicles on the road, yet you have no problem with them.

Like you, I would have a problem with some Land Rovers, but I'm worried that there is going to be fuel efficient 4x4s that are driven responsibly by their owners, yet are liable for congestion charges - not cool.

 

[Loki]

If you want to argue the toss about pollution then fair enough, but this thread is about 4x4s.

er, which cause more pollution per passenger than smaller vehicles.

 

[editor]

Erm, I can see your point about polution. I would like to see cars being more efficient, but there are both cars that are bad polluters while there are good 4x4s.

Actually there's only one 'good' kind of car for congested cities, and that's small, efficient, human-scale, quiet, environmentally friendly vehicles built for the job and not oversized, off-road brickhouses on Everest-scaling tyres.

 

[TonkaToy]

er, which cause more pollution per passenger than smaller vehicles.

You do you realize there is saloon cars out there bigger than the smaller 4x4s?

 

[editor]

You do you realize there is saloon cars out there bigger than the smaller 4x4s?

Do you realise that there's 4x4s out there that completely tower over saloon cars?

Do you realise that there's 4x4s are the fastest selling new category of urban car?

 

[Loki]

Hehe, that smacks of desperation, TonkaToy.

 

[fredfelt]

If you want to argue the toss about pollution then fair enough, but this thread is about 4x4s.

TonkaToy, you are wrong for two reasons.

1.

This thread started with an article similar to the one published in the Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1818800,00.html?gusrc=rss

An extract:

Following a consultation, congestion charge rates in the capital will vary based on road tax bands from A (100g CO2 per KM) to G (over 225g CO2 per KM).​

2.

It just so happens that most 4 x 4's fall into this criteria because they polute more

 

[kyser_soze]

Not true. When was the last time a train knocked down a cyclist or pedestrian?

Trains are one of the safest forms of transport there is. It's just that when it goes wrong it goes wrong *bigtime* and so you get the big banner headlines.

Ever hear of level crossing accidents?

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/2292.aspx

Altho you're right from a passenger perspective, they are safer.

All the 4x4 stuff is just symbolic anyway - it's an easy and very visible target to highlight the problem of urban motor vehicle pollution because unlike a large saloon car like a 7 Series or Merc 4x4 SUVs have no reason to be on urban roads beyond fashion and status grabbing (that's not to say that 7 Series and their ilk aren't but you get my point I hope).

 

[T & P]

Well those complaining the poor oppressed 4x4 is being targeted unfairly should be happier this morning. The £25 charge will be based on vehicles that emit more than 225 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre regardless of their size: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...3/ncharge13.xml&pPage=/core/Matt/pcMatt.jhtml

That means that some, smaller 4x4s will not be charged extra (damned shame if you ask me) and some state cars and saloons will.

It's a good thing of course but I would have included all 4x4s regardless of emissions on account of their inadequacy as city vehicles.

 

[TonkaToy]

TonkaToy, you are wrong for two reasons.

1.

This thread started with an article similar to the one published in the Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1818800,00.html?gusrc=rss

An extract:

Following a consultation, congestion charge rates in the capital will vary based on road tax bands from A (100g CO2 per KM) to G (over 225g CO2 per KM).​

2.

It just so happens that most 4 x 4's fall into this criteria because they polute more

If I'm wrong, fair enough, but then the thread title is misleading. If the thread title is misleading, I apologise if I've missed any post saying so.

 

[TonkaToy]

Do you realise that there's 4x4s out there that completely tower over saloon cars?

Do you realise that there's 4x4s are the fastest selling new category of urban car?

Yes and yes.

So what if they tower over saloon cars? So would a bus. Any calls to phase out double deckers?

Of course people find larger vechiles to the ones they are driving, intimidating but if was to use that as a punitive reason to go after vehicle owners there would never be an end to it. Cars are intimidating to cyclists. I agree with should encourage people to use cycles, but for green reasons, not because they would otherwise be driving around in something which is "intimidating" to other users.

Personally, if a single person without kids was looking at buying one and I had the chance, I would try and discourage it. But if they are practical for families, I don't see the problem here.

 

[T & P]

Yes and yes.

So what if they tower over saloon cars? So would a bus. Any calls to phase out double deckers?

If double deckers were used as a private vehicles by single users, then yes. But that isn't the case.

Of course people find larger vechiles to the ones they are driving, intimidating but if was to use that as a punitive reason to go after vehicle owners there would never be an end to it. Cars are intimidating to cyclists. I agree with should encourage people to use cycles, but for green reasons, not because they would otherwise be driving around in something which is "intimidating" to other users.

Personally, if a single person without kids was looking at buying one and I had the chance, I would try and discourage it. But if they are practical for families, I don't see the problem here.

The problem is:

-they're far bulkier

- they're far more polluting

- they're far more dangerous to pedestrians

- they're far more dangerous to other road users

- and they're even more dangerous to its own occupants

than any other car on the road, bar none.

As such, 4x4s are about as suited for city use as a Challenger 2 tank.

And those who insist on using such ill-suited vehicles in congested cities are being fucking selfish and should be penalised and encouraged to switch to a more suitable vehicle.


Couldn't be simpler, really.

 

[editor]

So what if they tower over saloon cars? So would a bus. Any calls to phase out double deckers? .

And why do you think double deckers are so tall?

Go on. Have a wild guess.

 

[TonkaToy]

And why do you think double deckers are so tall?

Go on. Have a wild guess.

LOL, but you know that's not the point though!

If these cars weren't well suited for city use, then these people wouldn't be going out buying them, would they?

Don't get me wrong, I find the argument for taxing vehicles that polute a logical one, but I just can't see how it's pracitcal to go after 4x4s.

 

[T & P]

Er... in case you missed it just above:

-they're far bulkier

- they're far more polluting

- they're far more dangerous to pedestrians

- they're far more dangerous to other road users

- and they're even more dangerous to its own occupants

than any other car on the road, bar none.