Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge

[trashpony]

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

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...

How do you make a lightweight X5?

In answer to Giles' question - I don't really have more of an issue with a Rav4 than a Mondeo estate. I do think a lot of people buy an estate the moment they reproduce which is utterly unnecessary in most cases. I've just taken my sister, my bil and my nephew and all our bags on holiday to France for a week. In a Peugeot 206. So all this 'I need more space' thinking is just stuff and nonsense.

I would just like Londoners to think about the impact of their car purchase on other road users (and I include other drivers as well as cyclists and pedestrians in that) and the community at large.

 

[editor]

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?

So you'd like more and more cars clogging up the streets because law-breaking motorists create some money for local authorities - and to hell with global warming, pollution, noise, congestion, quality of life issues etc, yes?

Oh, and I trust you'll now concede that your claim that motorists supposedly "subsidise" cyclists was in fact, a stinking piece of ill-informed claptrap?

 

[editor]

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

I'm arguing against a trend of new vehicles, which sees larger, bulkier, heavier machines being aggressively marketed at a time when we should be promoting the use of smaller, lighter, more appropriate vehicles on our streets.

 

[Jangla]

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

Yeeees, and they'd pay more. What's your point?

 

[Descartes]

Editro, ROFLMAO..

you are a voice in the wilderness... do you honestly believe that boroughs can run without the monies from the motorist...all that lovely money paid into those little machines just to park, then pay to drive in and out and pay if you use the wrong machine next to you becasue it's not sign posted correctly.

Let you into a secret, all the tickets I have contested, I have won.... yiii Haaa....

Still ROFLMAO.

 

[editor]

you are a voice in the wilderness... do you honestly believe that boroughs can run without the monies from the motorist...

Do you think your little tax disk pays the full cost of your driving? ROFLMAO!

But I've got bored with your endless wriggling and weird bouts of denial about the impact of pointlessly oversized cars on the environment.

I've rarely come across a more wilfully misinformed person.

I guess that's why you keep on avoiding those tricky questions that challenge your self centred viewpoint.

 

[Giles]

How do you make a lightweight X5?

In answer to Giles' question - I don't really have more of an issue with a Rav4 than a Mondeo estate. I do think a lot of people buy an estate the moment they reproduce which is utterly unnecessary in most cases. I've just taken my sister, my bil and my nephew and all our bags on holiday to France for a week. In a Peugeot 206. So all this 'I need more space' thinking is just stuff and nonsense.

I would just like Londoners to think about the impact of their car purchase on other road users (and I include other drivers as well as cyclists and pedestrians in that) and the community at large.

Small city cars are a nice idea, and practical for some.

And you are right about not NEEDING an estate car just cos you have a kid or two.

But, most people, if they can afford only one car, will tend to get one that does everything they will ever need.

So, they end up with a biggish car suitable for long trips with all the family, luggage etc, rather than a littler one.

Giles..

 

[Poot]

I'm with Trashpony on this one. I need a car but manage just fine with a Vauxhall Corsa, which takes all 3 of us everywhere, and I mean EVERYWHERE including on holiday! It would never cross my mind to buy anything bigger because it would seem foolish and greedy. I'm a firm believer that the way you drive says a lot about your personality. Maybe the same could be said about the car you choose.

 

[JoePolitix]

Surely the most proportionate response to this crisis effecting our nation is to round up all the 4 x 4 drivers and slaughter them like so many mangy dogs?

 

[Descartes]

I've rarely come across a more wilfully misinformed person.


Such a shame, I feel you have that special inability to move into the 21st century and realise the motorist pays for lots more than you could possible comprehend

Road tax disks, just check out parking costs, through out the country and what happens to the money.

What happens to all that tax on fuel..

All I I can say for you: in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

 

[laptop]

Surely the most proportionate response to this crisis effecting our nation is to round up all the 4 x 4 drivers and slaughter them like so many mangy dogs?

But not before we've made them eat their SUVs.

A nail-file will be provided to assist palatability.

 

[The Groke]

Surely the most proportionate response to this crisis effecting our nation is to round up all the 4 x 4 drivers and slaughter them like so many mangy dogs?

MMm yes, that sounds like the reasonable next step in a rational argument.



This thread does seem to bring out some insufferable smugness and self-righteousness in folk.

Saying:
"all 4x4's are bad M'kay, and everyone who drives one is clearly a paedo",
whilst waving your pitchfork, is just as moronic as declaring:
"4x4s are just as safe for pedestrians as a wheeled mattress, as economical as a 2 stroke lawnmower and the emissions are no different to that of dairy cow",
which seems, on the whole, to be the dominent two sides of the argument appearing on this thread.

Yes, these large 4 wheel drive vehicles are in many cases (and quite possibly most cases), completely unnecessary, and significantly more detrimental to our UK urban environment than other, smaller and more apposite vehicles.

Most often, people do buy them as a status symbol or because they erroneously assume that they have the right to protect their kids "that little bit extra" to the detriment of everything else around them.

That said, their are circumstances where a person could have good reason to buy car A over car B - and that car A may well be a mid to large size 4x4.

Bear in mind also, that despite the views of certain people in this thread, it is not as simple as believing that you can divide everything in to two camps - cars and 4x4's, where Cars=Good and 4x4=Bad- there really are some subtle variants between the two.

Should they have to pay extra for it? Well to an extent maybe they already do - if it is eating more fuel, they are buying more fuel and thus paying more tax, but yes - I do think people should have to pay a premium on road tax or a pollutant/environmental tax, providing that the scale was worked fairly, and providing that the same fees were leveraged against sports and performance cars with high emissions and low fuel economy, polluting and road damaging big vans and lorries etc as well.

Its deciding that scale that is the tricky part.

When does a 4 wheel drive car stop being a car and start being a 4x4 SUV?

What about a new SUV to the market that could carry 7 people and was as fuel efficient as a mid-size saloon car?

What if parents started car pooling - 1 mum taking 6 kids to school in her Landcruiser, rather than 5 mums driving 5 different vehicles of varying sizes and outputs? SHould she be penalised?

What about really fast, high polluting, low fuel economy sports cars....with 2 wheel drive?


I just don't think it is quite as cut and dried as some people seem to think it is.
Assuming of course that a society with cheap, effective, clean, safe and reliable public transport accross all areas of the country is out of our reach at the moment.

WHich it clearly is.

 

[lyra_k]

My biggest issue with SUVs is the sheer size of them. I'm sure that in terms of emissions and petrol consumption some of them are no worse than an old banger, or a sporty car.

They block the view of drivers driving smaller cars. They just do. And in accidents they cause more damage whether to pedestrians or to smaller vehicles. And the size/height is just completely unnecessary.

My biggest gripe though is how (in the US at least) family SUVs are becoming more and more like sitting-rooms-on-wheels - automatic transmission as standard, cruise control, climate control, DVD players (sometimes even in the front FFS), which IMO creates both a false sense of security, and the lack of effort in propelling the thing means that people can't actually really drive, and in a crisis situation are no better than your average 9 year old in having a bloody clue how to control their 2-ton behemoth.

People who can't drive a basic manual transmission vehicle should NOT be allowed on the roads.

 

[Jangla]

My biggest issue with SUVs is the sheer size of them.

Interestingly a new golf GTI has almost the same useable internal space as most 5 seater SUV's and does as well if not better in the NCAP tests. And it's smaller, cheaper and more economical. Go figure.

 

[Jangla]

Do you think your little tax disk pays the full cost of your driving? ROFLMAO!

Sure, but bear in mind only a 6th of all monies taken by the government from tax discs actually goes back into the roads in the first place.

Personally I think any kind of road taxation (whether that be road tax, congestion charges or tolls) needs to be a three fold calculation: emmisions, weight and footprint based.

 

[JoePolitix]

MMm yes, that sounds like the reasonable next step in a rational argument.

There's a time and place for rational argument and it certainly isn't on an SUV thread! Clearly anybody who lives on an urban terrain and chooses to drive a monstrosity like this

is beyond the realm of reason and should be surgically removed from society. This is a clash of civilisations muthafucka - humanity or barbarism.

 

[Giles]

My biggest issue with SUVs is the sheer size of them. I'm sure that in terms of emissions and petrol consumption some of them are no worse than an old banger, or a sporty car.

They block the view of drivers driving smaller cars. They just do. And in accidents they cause more damage whether to pedestrians or to smaller vehicles. And the size/height is just completely unnecessary.

My biggest gripe though is how (in the US at least) family SUVs are becoming more and more like sitting-rooms-on-wheels - automatic transmission as standard, cruise control, climate control, DVD players (sometimes even in the front FFS), which IMO creates both a false sense of security, and the lack of effort in propelling the thing means that people can't actually really drive, and in a crisis situation are no better than your average 9 year old in having a bloody clue how to control their 2-ton behemoth.

People who can't drive a basic manual transmission vehicle should NOT be allowed on the roads.

Forcing people to drive a manual transmission would immediately rule out most Americans, whether they drive an SUV or not. Almost every car over there is, and always has been, automatic.

I don't think that SUVs are more likely to have air-con or cruise control. Again these are general features found on many American-built cars right back to the 1950s, before anyone had heard of SUVs as a type of vehicle. Back then you just had cars, and pick-up trucks. And vans.

Giles..

 

[The Groke]

There's a time and place for rational argument and it certainly isn't on an SUV thread! ...... This is a clash of civilisations muthafucka - humanity or barbarism.

I would like to think that one of the marks of a civilised and intelligent society is the ability to always form and use rational arguments - no matter how emotive the subject may be to some......

I notice that single line was the only part of a substantial post that you chose to respond to.



Also: I think you will find it is spelt "motherfucker"

 

[Pie 1]

This is a clash of civilisations muthafucka

Dad forget to set the parental controls again?

 

[The Groke]

Dad forget to set the parental controls again?

Word and shit.

yo?

 

[lyra_k]

Forcing people to drive a manual transmission would immediately rule out most Americans, whether they drive an SUV or not. Almost every car over there is, and always has been, automatic.

I don't think that SUVs are more likely to have air-con or cruise control. Again these are general features found on many American-built cars right back to the 1950s, before anyone had heard of SUVs as a type of vehicle. Back then you just had cars, and pick-up trucks. And vans.

Giles..

I'm not suggesting that automatics should be banned, just that people should have to REALLY know how to drive before getting a driving licence (which IMO would involve knowing how to drive both). People here (in the US) who learn and take their test in an automatic really don;t have the slightest clue how to drive, especially in a crisis. Their vehicles are one step away from having a button for "stop" and a button for "go".

And as far as which cars are most likely to have the wide-spaced, armchair-like comfy seats, the onboard DVD players, and the rest of the sitting room accessories, it's the SUVs and the minivans. Fact. Sorry.

 

[paolo]

I've spent years in automotive, so i'll try to bring some clarity.

SUVs were, originally, designed for off road use.

There is no need to get "clever" about pretending there is no definition of SUV. CAP Automotive, who are the dominant supplier of automotive definition data in the UK, clearly categorise models as being SUV or otherwise. The automotive industry worldwide acknowledges the difference between an SUV and, say, an estate with four wheel drive. It's a high floored off road capable vehicle. Yep, there's some smaller ones, but that doesn't "magic away" the definition. The trade understands it, so the "pro urban SUV" people ought to aswell.

The controversy has arisen because SUVs are now being purchased solely for urban driving. If buyers had chosen MPVs instead, it's unlikely we would be where we are now. SUVs are seen as a fashion purchase, MPVs a necessity purchase (just as noone buys a van, travels by bus, ships goods by truck, for "style").

I would totally refute the "need" to by an SUV for urban driving. There are some very safe estates that can be bought with enough seats for a very large family. More seats than the average SUV you see in the city. Or buy an MPV.

The tradesmen who want a dual purpose vehicle can buy an estate or an MPV. Both can have configurable seats. There is no need for a high floor platform for trade. In fact, a selling point for commercial vehicles is a *LOW* loading platform, not a high one.

So buying an MPV or an estate or van weeds out the "style purchase". So only those that really need them will buy them. All good.

Rating things by emissions is good, and right. But it's not the whole story. Safety of other road users is relevant too. The front profile of SUVs is getting better, but it's still very bad news for pedestrians vs. getting hit by a small car designed for urban use. And that isn't debatable - at least if you accept the automotive industry authorities on the matter.

Spurious arguments about level crossings, trucks, etc are total diversions. The issue here is 'utility'. A bus, van, truck or train is designed for a purpose. As is an SUV. The automotive industry is quite clear on what SUVs were designed for. The problem is that they are being bought and used with an intent that conflicts with that.

If you *need* a high floored vehicle to go off road, then an SUV - with it's endemic safety issues - is still a logical purchase. If you don't need to go off road, then why do you need one?

 

[trashpony]

I've spent years in automotive, so i'll try to bring some clarity.

SUVs were, originally, designed for off road use.

There is no need to get "clever" about pretending there is no definition of SUV. CAP Automotive, who are the dominant supplier of automotive definition data in the UK, clearly categorise models as being SUV or otherwise. The automotive industry worldwide acknowledges the difference between an SUV and, say, an estate with four wheel drive. It's a high floored off road capable vehicle. Yep, there's some smaller ones, but that doesn't "magic away" the definition. The trade understands it, so the "pro urban SUV" people ought to aswell.

The controversy has arisen because SUVs are now being purchased solely for urban driving. If buyers had chosen MPVs instead, it's unlikely we would be where we are now. SUVs are seen as a fashion purchase, MPVs a necessity purchase (just as noone buys a van, travels by bus, ships goods by truck, as "style purchase").

I would totally refute the "need" to by an SUV for urban driving. There are some very safe estates that can be bought with enough seats for a very large family. More seats than the average SUV you see in the city. Or buy an MPV.

The tradesmen who want a dual purpose vehicle can buy an estate or an MPV. Both can have configurable seats. There is no need for a high floor platform for trade. In fact, a selling point for commercial vehicles is a *LOW* loading platform, not a high one.

So buying an MPV or an estate or van weeds out the "style purchase". So only those that really need them will buy them. All good.

Rating things by emissions is good, and right. But it's not the whole story. Safety of other road users is relevant too. The front profile of SUVs is getting better, but it's still very bad news for pedestrians vs. getting hit by a small car designed for urban use. And that isn't debatable - at least if you accept the automotive industry authorities on the matter.

Spurious arguments about level crossings, trucks, etc are total diversions. The issue here is 'utility'. A bus, van, truck or train is designed for a purpose. As is an SUV. The automotive industry is quite clear on what SUVs were designed for. The problem is that they are being bought and used with an intent that conflicts with that.

If you *need* a high floored vehicle to go off road, then an SUV - with it's endemic safety issues - is still a logical purchase. If you don't need to go off road, then why do you need one?

Amen to that

 

[JoePolitix]

I would like to think that one of the marks of a civilised and intelligent society is the ability to always form and use rational arguments - no matter how emotive the subject may be to some......

Another mark of a civilised society is not being a humourless glit who treats a bit of playful banter/satire as though it were a policy declaration.

Butcher Those Who Drive SUVs!

 

[JoePolitix]

 

[Jangla]

The automotive industry is quite clear on what SUVs were designed for. The problem is that they are being bought and used with an intent that conflicts with that.

Sure, but the automotive industry has been complicit in promoting them as a style choice rather than a functional choice for some time.

 

[The Groke]

Another mark of a civilised society is not being a humourless glit who treats a bit of playful banter/satire as though it were a policy declaration.

Butcher Those Who Drive SUVs!

And again you seem to chose to avoid addressing any of the points that anyone has made.....

back at you.

 

[Gixxer1000]

I do think a lot of people buy an estate the moment they reproduce which is utterly unnecessary in most cases. I've just taken my sister, my bil and my nephew and all our bags on holiday to France for a week. In a Peugeot 206. So all this 'I need more space' thinking is just stuff and nonsense.
.

As a lurker just like to add my twopence worth, a fully loaded "small " car such as yours reving its arse off on the motorway wont be as economical as a larger engined car designed for motorway cruising under load.

 

[trashpony]

As a lurker just like to add my twopence worth, a fully loaded "small " car such as yours reving its arse off on the motorway wont be as economical as a larger engined car designed for motorway cruising under load.

I'm well aware of that.

However I, like most people, only do that kind of driving a few times a year. For town driving to and from the supermarket/school/granny's house, my car is much more economical though. Which is what this discussion is about.

 

[Gixxer1000]

I'm well aware of that.

However I, like most people, only do that kind of driving a few times a year. For town driving to and from the supermarket/school/granny's house, my car is much more economical though. Which is what this discussion is about.

Yes and the point Im making Is that for some motorists, yes even some who come into London it can be more enviromentaly sound to be in a larger vehicle.

I like many on here despise 4x4's but what I despise more is fascist, keyboard warriors.(not necessarily directed at you t/pony)