Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge

[Kid_Eternity]

There's quite an irony to the fact that way back in Roman times wagons, carts and other wheeled vehicles were forced by law to only move around at night because of congestion.

Didn't the GLC (under Ken) have something similar? All delivery trucks/vans etc could only deliver at night? Or am I remembering something else?

 

[TonkaToy]

Cycle much, do you?

And you seem to be completely missing the point.

Buses and lorries are big because they have to be.

But do you think that for city streets, smaller, lighter, less polluting cars are more appropriate, or do you think that huge great over-engineered chunks of metal are better all round?

It depends what they are used for, doesn't it?

I don't like the idea of going after cars by their size, because the logical conclusion to all of that is to ban cars altogether on the premise that ALL cars are over-enginered for the purpose they serve.

Any such tax would be a dangerous precedent to set.

 

[TonkaToy]

Oh, some more here too.
ALL available in the UK:

Stoppit! I'm getting a hard on!

 

[editor]

To the casual looker they are all the same but, to the more techie guys, they are all different, in engine size and spec, interior trim and finish and just puting some photos up without models,,

But they have one thing in common. They're ALL TOO BIG for city streets. And with that increased size comes increased use of materials, increased weight and, ergo, increased fuel consumption.

And with that increased fuel consumption comes increased pollution.

It's really that simple.

People should be encouraged to drive LESS and in smaller, lighter, quieter and more fuel efficient vehicles that are more appropriate for congested cities.

Instead we get berks like you apologising for the most socially and environmentally irresponsible car trend to hit this country for decades.

4x4s 'should carry health warning'

 

[paolo]

A little anecdotal aside...

I used to work with a guy who'd spent all his career in the car industry - most of it at Land Rover. He was Land Rover man through and through - loved them and loved working for them.

At the time, he was on secondment to Ford of Europe, planning to go back to Land Rover. One day, just before he left his FoE post, we were discussing the situation with SUVs. His view was that ultimately, social pressure will kill the SUV market.

People forking out for, say, a new Discovery could easily afford a chunk of tax slapped on the vehicle. But, he speculated, even rich people don't like being hated.

He didn't go back to Land Rover in the end. Instead he moved into commercial vehicles at Ford UK. He genuinely expected the SUV market to have a big downturn and didn't want to be on board when it happened.

 

[Giles]

For all types of vehicle, I still think that fuel tax is the fairest way of penalising polluters.

It is directly proportionate to the amount of pollution you produce.

Whether you have a big car but only use it once a week, or have a small car, but are one of those people who drive everywhere, even when its only up the road.

It penalises those who drive aggressively - and therefore inefficiently.

It penalises those who don't keep their cars maintained, and who therefore produce more pollution by wasting fuel.

Best of all, it cannot be evaded, and there is no need for ever more complex, privacy-invading databases of who is doing what where in order to collect it.

Giles..

 

[arty]

exactly Giles. It's really very simple innit?
The only problem being there is no big profit to be made by some company setting up a hugely complicated satellite/database/camera system involving lots of government money.

 

[kyser_soze]

exactly Giles. It's really very simple innit?
The only problem being there is no big profit to be made by some company setting up a hugely complicated satellite/database/camera system involving lots of government money.

What on earth are you talking about?

Crapita is making a mint off the only big govt IT contract it's managed to pretty much get right, the congestion charge.

 

[jæd]

But they have one thing in common. They're ALL TOO BIG for city streets. And with that increased size comes increased use of materials, increased weight and, ergo, increased fuel consumption.

Um... Didn't someone boint out that 4x4s can actually be quite small and have a footprint of less than a BMW...?

 

[jæd]

For all types of vehicle, I still think that fuel tax is the fairest way of penalising polluters.

Yep, much easier to implement this then some wishy-washy tax on ill-defined group of vehicles a minority doesn't like that much.

 

[Jangla]

Well I'll have a try

To be really fair surely the congestion charge should be linked to the CO2 emissions in a way that doesnt have the arbitrary cut off of 225g/km of CO2.

Who came up with that figure anyway? And why? Why should someone driving a 224g/km car pay much less than someone driving a 226g/km car?

Surely the charge should be in direct proportion to the level of emissions? i.e. 1 pound for every 10g/km.

And then you would need to take into account the number of people in a vehicle. i.e. a minibus with 10 people produces less emmisions per person than 10 people driving individual (though fuel efficient) cars.

Problem is though it'd all get very complicated. Then you'd need a workforce, all of whom have to drive to work, working in a heated building (which will, of course result in increased pollution).

At the end of the day the congestion charge is there to decrease the number of vehicles in the city - if your vehicle is larger, heavier and takes up more room, you should pay more. Simple as.

 

[jæd]

At the end of the day the congestion charge is there to decrease the number of vehicles in the city - if your vehicle is larger, heavier and takes up more room, you should pay more. Simple as.

But won't larger vehicles have larger engine sizes, emit more pollution...?

 

[The Groke]

Um... Didn't someone boint out that 4x4s can actually be quite small and have a footprint of less than a BMW...?

But that is just arguing over the definition of the 4x4 again...

Really, as stated earlier in the thread, a slightly better term would be "SUV", but even then there are exceptions.

I think really people are just using "4x4" for convenience, rather than having to write "Those particularly large 4x4's with a long wheelbase which are capable of carrying 7 people and often have a 4 litre or larger engine.....etc"


My car is a "4x4" and it is no bigger than a mid-sized estate car. It has a 2.5 litre engine.

Yes there are smaller and more economical cars than this, but this one was the perfect blend of all-wheel drive and increased ground-clearance (which I need sometimes), alolng with space to transport people and "stuff" and yet it still it isn't a huge monster truck.

I had the option of getting something bigger, but didn't see the point - there are only 2 of us and I wouldn't be going out in to the Desert and off road that often!

As Ed mentioned - as far as I am concerned, it is "Engineered just right" for our needs - and no more.

 

[jæd]

As Ed mentioned - as far as I am concerned, it is "Engineered just right" for our needs - and no more.

I think this is the crux of the problem... Its engineered just right for you, but not the Editor. And I think the Editor is more mindful of his needs than yours. The same goes for mums on a school run. How else can they safely get their kids to school and back, in their minds...?

 

[The Groke]

I think this is the crux of the problem... Its engineered just right for you, but not the Editor. And I think the Editor is more mindful of his needs than yours.

Of course he is and I wouldn't expect it to be any other way!

I only passed my driving test last year, at 28, having lived in London for 10 years and used public transport/lifts all my life.

Now I am in Dubai, I have to have a car (no public transport), I need something big enough to carry me, my wife and friends if needs be as well as luggage and furniture (can't call in favours/lifts so easily here) and 4x4/ground-clearance is good when I visit sites for my job (rough tracks, sand etc) or sometimes when parking off-road (always sand) or taking day trips or otherwise navigating the sand covered and slippy roads generally.

Now clearly the Ed has no need for any of the above and copes with bike plus public transport plus lifts from mates etc.

Like I said, I could have bought a Landcruiser or Patrol or Jeep like everyone else does here - I chose the Forester as it was "Baby-bears porridge" as far as our exact needs were concerned.

I would generally agree about the innapriopriate nature of many suburban large 4x4's - sometimes however they can be useful and "just right" it is not possible to know the why every 4x4 driver bought theirs - it could well be "justifiable".

The same goes for mums on a school run. How else can they safely get their kids to school and back, in their minds...?

I guess a lot of folk equate "Big" with "Safe"....when it certainly is not always the case.

 

[Descartes]

Lets play a little game, what would happen to your tax bill if we did away with, say 50% of the vehicles that have an emission output in excess of the .... BMW mini.... cooper s, nice small. racey and town type....

Fuel, petrol and diesel, still have a tax on a tax..... the original fuel price included Purchase tax, when VAT came in, the VAT was added to the purchase tax, the only country to tax a tax..

Now, buy a new car, opps, car tax,,,, buy a commercial, a small van even, car tax and VAT.... yer .. more tax on tax...

Now take away, the road tax, DVLA and all that, take out of towns the parking fines, the biggest source of income for most of the larger cities and towns...

The congestion charges....

Boy you had better get ready.. becaue the Motorist is subsidising you, your family, your right to use your bike on the road, .the National Health, .. the motorist has been used as the financial barometer of this country since the car was built.

If you for one silly deluded moment think you can get by withut the motorist.

Well, just think again. and get ready to start paying.

How ever much you shout and scream, without it, you aint going nowhere.

 

[editor]

Boy you had better get ready.. becaue the Motorist is subsidising you, your family, your right to use your bike on the road, .the National Health, .. the motorist has been used as the financial barometer of this country since the car was built.

Naturally, you're talking utter shite as usual.

Your car licence doesn't pay for roads - it is a tax on a luxury item and forms a small part of general taxation.

The tax disc has never paid for roads, other than by adding to the general taxation pool, any more than the tax on alcohol subsidises pubs.

In any case, taxes on vehicles do not cover the full cost of roads and traffic and the damage they do. Therefore, everyone, including cyclists, subsidises motorists out of general taxation.

The cyclist is ‘a guest on roads that are paid for by motorists’ so said the motoring journalist Jeremy Clarkson. Every cyclist has heard similar accusations countless times. In fact the opposite is true.

In law, cyclists have the right of way on roads; motorists must use them under licence and as studies by Transport 2000 and Leeds University show, it is the cyclist that subsidises the motorist.

For every mile a motorist drives, taxpayers subsidise the journey by 21p after taking into account accidents, maintenance and pollution.

Rob Ainsley, writing in the London Cyclist, the magazine of the London Cycling Campaign, estimated that costs of cycling on a similar basis amounted to 0.21p per mile. Rob reckoned that this figure did not take into account of hidden national benefits such as health and savings to the NHS.”

Do you think that there should be a pavement tax too, by the way?


Excellent resource here too: http://www.transport2000.org.uk/factsandfigures/Facts.asp

 

[Giles]

I don't think I would ever want one of those really big SUVs, no matter how much money I had, even just for the selfish reason that I am not going to buy and run som machine that gives less then 25mpg for no useful purpose.

But I don't see why a little "jeep" type car is any worse than any other car.

Do the anti "4x4" people object to things like:

Suzuki SJ410s and 413s?

Toyota RAV4s?

Freelanders?

Old-style Landy series 2 and 3s?

None of these is even the same "footprint" or engine size as your average large family saloon or "people carrier".

Is it just the really big and big-engined SUVs that people see as a problem, or is there something about a "jeep" bodystyle that makes it worse than a Renault Espace, for example?

Giles..

 

[editor]

None of these is even the same "footprint" or engine size as your average large family saloon or "people carrier".

Is it just the really big and big-engined SUVs that people see as a problem, or is there something about a "jeep" bodystyle that makes it worse than a Renault Espace, for example?

You're missing the point.

Cars for the city should *all* be getting smaller, lighter, more fuel efficent, less polluting and less resource hogging.

There can still be larger vehicles if the user's needs require it, but this current trend for outragreously large macho vehicles for running down the shops or taking little Timmy to school is fucking crazy.

 

[Giles]

You're missing the point.

Cars for the city should *all* be getting smaller, lighter, more fuel efficent, less polluting and less resource hogging.

There can still be larger vehicles if the user's needs require it, but this current trend for outragreously large macho vehicles for running down the shops or taking little Timmy to school is fucking crazy.

I was a straightforward question.

Is a "baby jeep" like a 3 door RAV4 (5 seats) in some way worse than either a large-ish Mondeo or above sized car, or than pretty much any "people carrier", or not?

I am just interested.

For the record, I totally agree that people shouldn't drive fuel-hog cars just for the image or "fashion".

I don't.

Giles..

 

[paolo]

"weeny" SUV pretendalites (e.g. RAV4) are better than the monster things... but overall, for the city, we need less cars and smaller cars. Oh and better public transport of course.

 

[editor]

Is a "baby jeep" like a 3 door RAV4 (5 seats) in some way worse than either a large-ish Mondeo or above sized car, or than pretty much any "people carrier", or not?

It's worse than a proper lightweight city car.

I can't be arsed to start trawling through spec sheets to work out the nuances of various cars, because it's got very little to do with my point.

I want smaller, quieter, lighter cars more appropriate to the urban environment. And I'd like less of them too, with people encouraged to walk, cycle and use public transport.

 

[Hollis]

Boy you had better get ready.. becaue the Motorist is subsidising you, your family, your right to use your bike on the road, .the National Health, .. the motorist has been used as the financial barometer of this country since the car was built.

And the thickest twat of the day award goes to..

 

[paolo]

And the thickest twat of the day award goes to..

There's been other weird shit too. The UK's implementation of certain railway level crossings is, hey presto, relevant to SUVs!

I expect he'll post more gobshite soon. He seems to.

 

[Descartes]

Wow, I am amongst all these clever people that can't add 2 and 2 together because they are so involved in 4x4...

Get you new glasses and look around..

The largest source of income to cities and most major towns, parking. Major source of income for central gov, tax on petrol. Now, if that disappeared who would be expected to pay?

And all you guys can imagine or think about is Road tax, The figures you are quoting are 20 years out of date.

All right smartie pants, The 4x4 that everyone is getting excited about, how many are registered in this country?

There are none so blind.. etc etc..

 

[Descartes]

Penalty notices have increased from just over two million a year in 1994-95 to nearly six million in 2003-04. Boroughs in London now make more than £112 million a year from parking enforcement services. Evidence received by the Committee stated that parking managers are allocated specific financial targets at the start of a financial year with the expectation that parking fines will deliver this income.

 

[Descartes]

The order came as it was revealed income from parking fines smashed the £1billion figure for the first time in 2003-04. From that, £439million is supposed to go on improving transport systems but the memo admits there is "not much information" about what benefits there are.

 

[Descartes]

City of Westminster, which last year issued 817,596 penalty charge notices and earned £72 million from parking – making it Britain’s highest-ranking council on both counts. The ticket machine, on a traffic island separating two wide traffic lanes, belongs to the neighbouring Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (on-street parking income: £39,219,000), but it would take a close reading of the payment instructions to notice the distinction, and there is no warning, even in the small print, that this machine’s tickets are invalid in the nearby bay.

 

[Descartes]

So, lets do away with the car, and where, clever clogs, do we get the money .. Oh got it, Council Tax... yer good idea... how many million?

 

[jæd]

I can't be arsed to start trawling through spec sheets to work out the nuances of various cars, because it's got very little to do with my point.

i think this sums up the 4x4 "haters" point... They're trying to argue against a varied class of vehicle with little success.

I want smaller, quieter, lighter cars more appropriate to the urban environment. And I'd like less of them too, with people encouraged to walk, cycle and use public transport.

Personally I would want cars that emit as little pollution as possible. With the congestion charge and the decrese of vehicles on Londons rounds, size is less of a concern... "lighter" would be handy as it would decrease mpg...