Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge

[kyser_soze]

Well to begin with can we start by referring to them as SUVs or similar - why should someone driving a Subaru (or even a little Fiat Panda 4x4) have to pay £20?

CCharge should be based on vehicle model and engine size - while Descartes arguments are tired there are a couple of ultimately relevant points. Thereis a social element to this hating of SUVs because of the perception that they are only driven by West London idiots which is simply not true as anyone who has experienced bling 4x4s will testify!

While I agree with the aims of the groups involved in wanting to get rid of urban SUVs (space, pollution, safety), turning the debate into a class war issue is pointless since it isn't a class issue.

 

[kyser_soze]

A guy I work with drives a fuckin huge GMC suburban. When I asked him about it he explained that 15yrs ago his wife (the mother of very small children) was killed in a car wreck when someone else smashed into her. She was driving a very small car and probably would have survived if it had been a big SUV.

He is not going to risk that happening again.

Is he a 'selfish cunt'?

I drive a very old Dodge caravan which gets about 18mpg. And I mostly drive it to and from work.
The reason I bought the thing was to transport my entire family (4 people) and everything we owned from Nevada to Baltimore (a good 6 days travel). It was relatively cheap to buy and for various reasons made a lot more sense than hiring a trailer.
Of course as soon as I can afford it I'm going to trade it in for something smaller. But in the mean time, am I a selfish cunt?

A generalised statement about a diverse group of people rarely stands up to scrutiny.

Bollocks reason - she died because crash protection in the small car she was driving wasn't adequate (no surprise there - you're talking about US cars). It's been shown time after time that SUVs are no safer than properly protected small vehicles.

So yes, he is being a selfish cunt because he's not relying on 'it's big therefore it's safe' instinct rather than looking at what makes vehicles safe.

 

[tarannau]

Is he a 'selfish cunt'?

A generalised statement about a diverse group of people rarely stands up to scrutiny.

Yes. To protect his family - and there's no guarantee that a bigger vehicle necessarily will - he's picked a mode of transport that massively increases the risks of serious injury to pedestrians and, by his/your logic at least, to other vehicle users as well. Oh and they're generally gaz-wasting energy inefficient guzzlebags too.

Now I can vaguely understand his reasons for choosing such a vehicle, but it's doesn't make them correct or any less of a selfish decision.

 

[fredfelt]

4x4 Saftey

A few years ago I was following a Landrover on the motorway.

It had a blow out. Due to the high centre of gravity the car rolled.

The driver got thrown out of the window and died instantly. The passengers were all quite badly hurt.

Its not just damage you do to everyone else if you choose to drive a 4X4.

Any tool we can use to make these vehicles more socially unacceptable has to be used. It would be very sad to go down the route the US has gone where you buy a 4X4 to protect your self just because every other bugger has one.

 

[angry bob]

Bollocks reason - she died because crash protection in the small car she was driving wasn't adequate (no surprise there - you're talking about US cars). It's been shown time after time that SUVs are no safer than properly protected small vehicles.

So yes, he is being a selfish cunt because he's not relying on 'it's big therefore it's safe' instinct rather than looking at what makes vehicles safe.

I didnt mean to suggest that his reasoning was neccessarily correct ... just that it was understandable and that this guy (whose a nice guy btw) is not a cunt of any description. Who doesnt put the lives of their families above those of everyone else?

Although (without any research) it seems that a general rule of 'the bigger the car: the safer you are' makes a lot of sense. From a basic physics POV: in a headon collision a small car would experience a greater acceleration and thus the passenger would be thrown into the window with more force. The mass of the car would surely be a very important factor in most accidents?

 

[angry bob]

Now I can vaguely understand his reasons for choosing such a vehicle, but it's doesn't make them correct or any less of a selfish decision.

YEah ... it is a selfish decision. But then most decisions are. He puts his family first (even if his reasoning is wrong). He aint a cunt though.

And what about me? My old minivan gets a lot fewer mpg than most new SUVs. And I aint a cunt either!


And I'm pretty sure Ive seen comercials for a new hybrid SUV that gets better mpg than some small cars. And although higher, it didnt seem to be much wider/longer than a typical saloon.

 

[Pie 1]

I still don't understand why they are allowed in Central London AT ALL????...let alone Greater London...why can't they jus be banned in Central London?...end of.

Because for better or (in this case) worse, we live in a free country where all of us are allowed to make choices for ourselves about how we live our lives. In the case of urban suv owners, that choice is obviously a very selfish one.
Banning them is never going to happen and IMO shouldn't. It's just not helpful in the broader scheme of things, not to mention, unworkable in reality.
Whist extra charging is a good idea in theory, it's unlikely to have a huge effect - if you've got £50 - 80k for one of these things, you're hardly going to give a fuck about how much it costs to run.
I advocate a campaign of humiliation and possably shock tactics advertising ('your kids that you're so eager to protect in a 4x4 are going to have accute asthma in 20 yrs as a reult of it etc etc) similar to the drink driving campaigns - one of social unaceptability.

 

[kyser_soze]

Although (without any research) it seems that a general rule of 'the bigger the car: the safer you are' makes a lot of sense. From a basic physics POV: in a headon collision a small car would experience a greater acceleration and thus the passenger would be thrown into the window with more force. The mass of the car would surely be a very important factor in most accidents?

Doesn't work like that at all.

A modern supermini is safer than a saloon built 10/15 years ago by virtue of the impact protection systems it's now mandatory to have (whether via govt legislation or market demand). Even in your example you aren't taking into account modern seatbelts which have two stages of 'grip' to help prevent belt-related injury.

Car construction and internal impact protection systems are far more important than size when it comes to protecting passengers. Not surprising that your tale is from the US - we're talking about a car industry that actively campaigned against fitting seat belts (still the single biggest contributor to car safety EVER) for 2 decades after it was shown conclusively that even a 2 point (lap) belt would save lives...

Have a look round the NTSB or the UK Transport Research Laboratory websites for stuff on how design and engineering, not size, are key to vehicle safety.

The absolute classic example of how wearing a seatbelt can save your life is of course Diana - the only person wearing a belt was her bodyguard and he was the only person to survive - and they were in a big luxury Merc with lots of protection!!

 

[jæd]

I advocate a campaign of humiliation and possably shock tactics advertising....

I think the only people who will be humilated will be the protestors. I'm fine with people wanting to cut down emissions, but why not try and protest about something more than a housewife on the schoolrun... Encouraging companies to produce more efficient engines, f'r'instance...

Oh, and care how to explain how driving a 4x4 is a dangerous as drink driving...? Getting in the drivers seat doesn't automatically get you pissed...!

 

[jæd]

YEah ... it is a selfish decision. But then most decisions are. He puts his family first (even if his reasoning is wrong). He aint a cunt though.

And what about me? My old minivan gets a lot fewer mpg than most new SUVs. And I aint a cunt either!

Well, my decision to drive a 4x4 Jeep-type-thing is quite simple. In London the driving position is perfect, and its very nippy compared to most cars, (I think most car drivers they drive tanks the way they manouver...!). The main job its used for (in London) is shifting stuff around... I could get a hire van to do that, but they are less environmentally clean...

 

[trashpony]

Well, my decision to drive a 4x4 Jeep-type-thing is quite simple. In London the driving position is perfect, and its very nippy compared to most cars,

Eh?

 

[Giles]

This argument that SUV drivers are somehow more selfish worries me:

OK at one extreme you have people driving 5l V8 monsters, I can see that this is selfish.

But how exactly is driving a Suzuki Vitara, or Landrover Freelander more selfish than driving a BMW 5 series or 7 series? In this case the 4 wheel drive vehicle is both smaller and more economic.

Why not just campaign against anyone who drives any vehicle that is either bigger or more polluting than they strictly "need".

A 15+ year old 2l+ engined car pollutes loads more than almostanything brand new. Are the drivers of those "selfish" too?

Or are they exempt from selfishness regulations because they aren't rich and therefore don't annoy people with their conspicuous consumption?

I drive a Transit bus some of the time and I quite enjoy being higher up because you can see ahead in the traffic better than you can in a car. Is that selfish? I think it's safer to be able to see what is around you better.

e2a: My dad drives around in a 1990 model Volvo 245 estate car. I'll bet thats pretty heavy on fuel, and it predates catalytic converters, too. And I know that the main reason he likes it is because it's sheer size, weight etc, combined with Volvo's known safe reputation, means that should he have an accident, he, his wife and my two kid sisters would be less likely to be seriously hurt than in a smaller, lighter car. Is that selfish?

Giles..

 

[jæd]

Eh?

1. nimble; agile; quick; fast.

 

[Pie 1]

Oh, and care how to explain how driving a 4x4 is a dangerous as drink driving...?

I never said it was, you plank. Read the post.

Posted by Pie 1:
similar to the drink driving campaigns

 

[BrixiSteve]

'4x4s in London also cause problems with parking, as they take up more than the usual parking space and take up extra space on the road itself. '

Not true. There are only a handfull of 4x4's that take up more road space than your average family car and very few that take up more road space than your average luxury car. If they are not parked correctly then, yes, they will block the road. Otherwise there shouldn't really be a problem.

 

[kyser_soze]

But how exactly is driving a Suzuki Vitara, or Landrover Freelander more selfish than driving a BMW 5 series or 7 series? In this case the 4 wheel drive vehicle is both smaller and more economic.

This is precisely why anything like this should be based around model and engine size, not whether it's 'unsuitable' to be driven around London or not...

 

[scifisam]

I drive a Transit bus some of the time and I quite enjoy being higher up because you can see ahead in the traffic better than you can in a car. Is that selfish? I think it's safer to be able to see what is around you better.

The only reason you can see more is because some of the other vehicles are smaller. If they all got bigger, then you'd have to get a bigger vehicle in order to see over them. It's an arms race.

The drivers of those old gas-guzzlers are possibly equally selfish, or possibly just not able to afford to change car; at any rate, as someone else said, there's not the same volume of those people on the roads, so they're not the right battle to pick.

Although (without any research) it seems that a general rule of 'the bigger the car: the safer you are' makes a lot of sense. From a basic physics POV: in a headon collision a small car would experience a greater acceleration and thus the passenger would be thrown into the window with more force. The mass of the car would surely be a very important factor in most accidents?

Again, it becomes an arms race. And more pedestrians die.

 

[scifisam]

This is precisely why anything like this should be based around model and engine size, not whether it's 'unsuitable' to be driven around London or not...

The proposal in the link is bsed on emissions alone.

 

[trashpony]

1. nimble; agile; quick; fast.

I know what nippy means - I just know from having driven jeeps that they are not as nippy as many normal cars

 

[Pie 1]

The main job its used for (in London) is shifting stuff around... I could get a hire van to do that, but they are less environmentally clean...

What 4x4 do you have exactly? Seriously, cause I know that unless it's something like a Nissan Patrol, a Landcruiser, a long wheelbase Defender or possably a Isuzu Trooper, that my estate car has more boot space than most of them. Esspecially Jeeps.

 

[fredfelt]

This argument that SUV drivers are somehow more selfish worries me:

OK at one extreme you have people driving 5l V8 monsters, I can see that this is selfish.

But how exactly is driving a Suzuki Vitara, or Landrover Freelander more selfish than driving a BMW 5 series or 7 series? In this case the 4 wheel drive vehicle is both smaller and more economic.

Why not just campaign against anyone who drives any vehicle that is either bigger or more polluting than they strictly "need".

A 15+ year old 2l+ engined car pollutes loads more than almostanything brand new. Are the drivers of those "selfish" too?

Or are they exempt from selfishness regulations because they aren't rich and therefore don't annoy people with their conspicuous consumption?

I drive a Transit bus some of the time and I quite enjoy being higher up because you can see ahead in the traffic better than you can in a car. Is that selfish? I think it's safer to be able to see what is around you better.

e2a: My dad drives around in a 1990 model Volvo 245 estate car. I'll bet thats pretty heavy on fuel, and it predates catalytic converters, too. And I know that the main reason he likes it is because it's sheer size, weight etc, combined with Volvo's known safe reputation, means that should he have an accident, he, his wife and my two kid sisters would be less likely to be seriously hurt than in a smaller, lighter car. Is that selfish?

Giles..

Giles I think that is selfish. When you start getting bigger cars to be safe where does it end?

I personally think that the vast majority of car journies made are selfish. Over 3,500 people die each year on the roads as a direct result of accidents. Many studys suggest many thousand more die as a direct and indirect result of air polution caused by motorised road traffic. 25% of the UK's carbon emmisions come from transport.

I used to drive everywhere but I can no longer justify owning a car. I live in a city so it makes it easy for me to be car free. My life is better without a car - less expense, less time in traffic, less time travelling, more freedom!

OK I accept a few people 'need' cars. But most people have the ability to organise a car free life for the benefit of theirselves and society as a whole.

Imagne how beautiful our cities could become if they were mostly car free!

On another note would it be selfish for 1.3bn Chinese to own cars? It has to stop somewhere before the car makes it impossible to travel.

 

[smokedout]

i would advocate a direct action campaign against 4x4's

probably when drunk in posh areas in the middle of the night, someone might decide to start slashing tyres, damaging paintwork etc

if owning a 4x4 became a liability then ownership would fall dramatically

 

[kyser_soze]

The other thing about mass car ownership is that it completely destroys any chance of actually having any fun while you're driving since you end up stuck in traffic all the time.

Car sharing is the way forward I reckon (there was a Times article about it a while back - you join up and there is a pool of cars that you can call on to use when you need to)

 

[scifisam]

'4x4s in London also cause problems with parking, as they take up more than the usual parking space and take up extra space on the road itself. '

Not true. There are only a handfull of 4x4's that take up more road space than your average family car and very few that take up more road space than your average luxury car. If they are not parked correctly then, yes, they will block the road. Otherwise there shouldn't really be a problem.

Hmm, I stand partially corrected then. However, as a pedestrian they make crossing the road more difficult - you can't see past them to see what's coming towards you. Height is as much of a problem as width there.

 

[trashpony]

The other thing about mass car ownership is that it completely destroys any chance of actually having any fun while you're driving since you end up stuck in traffic all the time.

Car sharing is the way forward I reckon (there was a Times article about it a while back - you join up and there is a pool of cars that you can call on to use when you need to)

There are special parking places in West Hampstead for car pool cars. I've never seen any cars in them. That was what easycar was supposed to be but I went down there at my allotted time, waited an hour and a half and there was only one car. It was me going to take my nan shopping or a couple who were trying to get to a wedding - she was in tears. I let them have the car.

That's the problem - people are used to being able to get in their car and pop out when they fancy it. Also - it's still cheaper to drive if there's more than 2 of you in the car than get the train - which sucks.

 

[Giles]

So, to choose a car known for its safety and solidity is selfish? Well, in that case, I am selfish and proud to be so, so tough.

I also like to be able to see around me in traffic. If that is selfish, then fine also.

People should be allowed to make whatever choices they want.

This 4x4 campaign is 90% prejudice against a certain stereotyped person waving their money around in public.

If people stopped with the 4x4 thing and switched to biggish people-carriers and mini-vans, how would that be?

They are also big, heavy on fuel, high up, etc. Just not (usually) equipped with 4wd.

Giles..

 

[Pie 1]

i would advocate a direct action campaign against 4x4's

probably when drunk in posh areas in the middle of the night, someone might decide to start slashing tyres, damaging paintwork etc

if owning a 4x4 became a liability then ownership would fall dramatically

Fucking stupid idea that undermines ligitimate concerns and protests.

 

[trashpony]

Hmm, I stand partially corrected then. However, as a pedestrian they make crossing the road more difficult - you can't see past them to see what's coming towards you. Height is as much of a problem as width there.

He's also being slightly disingenuous - here's a comparison

L W (in cm)
Chrysler Grand Voyager 2.8 crd 509 200
Jaguar XJ8 4.2 SE Auto 509 186
Lexus GS300 Se Auto 4dr 480 175
Saab 9-52.0T Vector 480 204
Rover 75 1.8T connoiseur 474 196
Volvo V70 2.4S Estate 471 180
Land Rover Discovery TD5 470 189
BMW X5 3.0d Sport 4x4 467 218
Renault Espace2.2dci Priviledge 466 186
Ford Galaxy 1.9 Tdi LX 464 181
Toyota Rav4 2.0 D-4D XT2 463 176
Audi A4 1.8T Quattro 455 177
Hyundai Santa Fe 2.0 Crtd Gsi 450 173
Jeep Cherokee 2.5 CRD Ltd 450 182
Nissan X-trail 2.2 dci 136 Se 445 177
Land Rover Freelander 2.0 Td4 442 181
Porshe Boxter 2.7 431 178
Ford Focus 2.0i Zetec 415 170

so that's 30cm narrower and around 60cm shorter than an average car in fact ...

ps these numbers are from the pro-4x4 site I quoted on page 2 of this thread

 

[trashpony]

This 4x4 campaign is 90% prejudice against a certain stereotyped person waving their money around in public.

No it isn't. They are representative of a 'fuck you I don't give a shit about anyone else' attitude.

That's why I don't like them. And anyone that drives a car in London with a 2.5 litre engine or bigger is a selfish cunt.

 

[smokedout]

Fucking stupid idea that undermines ligitimate concerns and protests.

it would work

unlike most of the legitimate campaigns and protests