Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge
- Thread starter Dan U
- Start date
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Giles said:
Everyone should buy a tank then. That would make us all safe.
Anyway my points were not specifically against 4x4's but cars in general.
Due to folk driving I can get breathing difficulties when I commute using my bike on busy roads. Due to the selfish actions of drivers making unnecessary journies I have to take the long route to work to avoid the polution.
I don't think its selfish expecting to be able to breathe with out imparement from poluting vehicles. Particularly those that make far more polution than necessary.
If you must have a good view at the expense of my breathing then I see no reason why you should not pay through the nose for your all important view. You should have your choice, just pay for the privlidge. The best views are to be had as a cyclist or a pedestrian anyway!
incorrect, we do have a legitimate complaint so lets take action that will be effective
if word got round places like islington that of you own a 4x4 your quite likely to wake up and find the tyres ripped and not be able to drive to work it wouldnt be long before people started to choose other types of cars
it would have the added benefit of lowering the number of 4x4's on the road whilst they were being repaired etc
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
smokedout said:
No it wouldn't - they'd just use their position of power to ensure that the OB were out patrolling and press for tougher sentences for 4x4h8rz.
Or they'd start armuor plating the things.
smokedout said:
Or why not protest about legitimate problems...? Or write to your MP and lobby Parliment. If you go around destroying others property you will (a) give reason for stiffer penalties to people who do and (hopefully) (b) be locked up. You can't do much protesting from gaol...!
jæd said:Um... Which would make your car larger than mine... I thought the argument was 4x4 are bad because they are so big...!
Personally I never really supported the length/width thing with the anti 4x4 ers. In that respect they don't use any more space than my car, MVP's or full size saloon cars
The height thing and the engine size are legit issues though.
Pretty much all 4x4's are 2.5 L and higher with the majority in the higher end. That is totally unnessasary.
My car is of normal height, can carry a fuck load more that most 'designer' 4x4's and has an efficient 2.0 L engine which is more than enough to propel it easily around a city or on a motorway, even with a full load.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I must confess walking back thru a 4x4 forest one Sunday night (been out raving) and letting loads of tyres down...I viewed it as 'annoying and non-destructive protest' akin to the situationists and humourists...(well I was a bit floaty and it seemed like a laugh at the time but hey, I can justify it using historical precedents...)
whats my mp gonna do
supporters of bobby sands might disagree
in any event youd have to be a bit of a muppet to get caught, not many cops about in hampstead at 4 in the morning
4x4 drivers beware
ive also heard of some v hard to remove stickers saying planet fucker
middle of the drivers windscreen best place for them i reckon
supporters of bobby sands might disagree
in any event youd have to be a bit of a muppet to get caught, not many cops about in hampstead at 4 in the morning
4x4 drivers beware
ive also heard of some v hard to remove stickers saying planet fucker
middle of the drivers windscreen best place for them i reckon
subversplat
writer of wrongs
Sometimes I have three vehicles!smokedout said:
I balance it out though by not having a house
subversplat
writer of wrongs
Depends where they're built.WouldBe said:Houses don't clog the roads up though.
They're much more of an eyesore in greenbelt...
OH Dear..
Emissions and pollutions, the modern engine, regardless of size is governed to reduce harmfull emissions. The amount of hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide etc have all been greatly reduced by design, electronic engine management systems and the 'cat' exhaust systems.
In retrospect, the gaz guzzerly monters of 1950 etc are protected by the modern legislation and do not have emissin test to comply with MOT standards, the greater the sophistication the more efficient the engine. less pollutions, less petrol burnt.
The comparisons between luxury saloons and SUV, people carriers and small cars neds to have strict guide lines, Since 2000 the build quality and the emission standards have been excellent and the current improvements have further enhanced the vehicle emission. M.o T tests have and do regulate the standards, emission criteria is strict and the number of vehicles failing are very few. A reflection of the present high standards, now, selecting SUVs for some mindless and ' corupt' money making system is typical of Red Kens private agenda against Motor vehicle.
Emissions and pollutions, the modern engine, regardless of size is governed to reduce harmfull emissions. The amount of hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide etc have all been greatly reduced by design, electronic engine management systems and the 'cat' exhaust systems.
In retrospect, the gaz guzzerly monters of 1950 etc are protected by the modern legislation and do not have emissin test to comply with MOT standards, the greater the sophistication the more efficient the engine. less pollutions, less petrol burnt.
The comparisons between luxury saloons and SUV, people carriers and small cars neds to have strict guide lines, Since 2000 the build quality and the emission standards have been excellent and the current improvements have further enhanced the vehicle emission. M.o T tests have and do regulate the standards, emission criteria is strict and the number of vehicles failing are very few. A reflection of the present high standards, now, selecting SUVs for some mindless and ' corupt' money making system is typical of Red Kens private agenda against Motor vehicle.
As a pedestrian and cyclist I don't like SUVs, and as a keen driver I can't see the appeal of them. But tbh I think the emissions and the road space arguments with SUVs are a bit dubious.
The emissions argument is flawed because - as already pointed out - there are plenty of ordinary cars that will pollute as much, or more. A 3-litre SUV is unlikely to prioduce much more in the way of harmful emissions than a new saloon with an engine of the same size, and less than a decade-old supermini. So should we ban people from driving older/classic cars because their engines pollute more than the average? I don't think so... Again with road space, a decent-sized family car covers much the same area, so I can't really see any grounds for restricting SUV use on those grounds.
Also, the idea of restricting vehicles based on their transmission is a non-starter. The terms 4x4 and SUV are often used interchangably, but they aren't the same. The former just refers to the number of driven wheels, and plenty of smaller cars have four-wheel-drive and are all the safer for it. It'd be silly to pass laws aimed at SUVs that have the incidental effect of impinging on the use of ordinary saloons like the Subaru Impreza that just happen to have four-wheel-drive.
My problem with SUVs is just the size and the weight. Pedestrians and cyclists - and drivers of small cars - are far more likely to be injured or killed in a collision with an SUV than with an ordinary saloon. Get hit by a Mondeo and you go over the bonnet, which is not nice but often survivable: get hit by a Range Rover and you go straight under its wheels. They're dangerous to other road users, and on those grounds it is fair to say that it's selfish to drive them in urban areas.
They're no safer for the occupants than an average new saloon car - they just give the illusion of being so because of their size - and as a driver I can't imagine anything less enjoyable than trying to pilot a 17-foot, two-ton tank through central London. Give me a Mini any day to slip in an out of the traffic - and to leave clumsy tanks for dead on a winding B-road!
What's to do? IMO banning them is far too draconian, and increasing the congestion charge for them would be an adminitrative headache. Better IMO just to do what the French have done and stick a big sales tax on them.
The emissions argument is flawed because - as already pointed out - there are plenty of ordinary cars that will pollute as much, or more. A 3-litre SUV is unlikely to prioduce much more in the way of harmful emissions than a new saloon with an engine of the same size, and less than a decade-old supermini. So should we ban people from driving older/classic cars because their engines pollute more than the average? I don't think so... Again with road space, a decent-sized family car covers much the same area, so I can't really see any grounds for restricting SUV use on those grounds.
Also, the idea of restricting vehicles based on their transmission is a non-starter. The terms 4x4 and SUV are often used interchangably, but they aren't the same. The former just refers to the number of driven wheels, and plenty of smaller cars have four-wheel-drive and are all the safer for it. It'd be silly to pass laws aimed at SUVs that have the incidental effect of impinging on the use of ordinary saloons like the Subaru Impreza that just happen to have four-wheel-drive.
My problem with SUVs is just the size and the weight. Pedestrians and cyclists - and drivers of small cars - are far more likely to be injured or killed in a collision with an SUV than with an ordinary saloon. Get hit by a Mondeo and you go over the bonnet, which is not nice but often survivable: get hit by a Range Rover and you go straight under its wheels. They're dangerous to other road users, and on those grounds it is fair to say that it's selfish to drive them in urban areas.
They're no safer for the occupants than an average new saloon car - they just give the illusion of being so because of their size - and as a driver I can't imagine anything less enjoyable than trying to pilot a 17-foot, two-ton tank through central London. Give me a Mini any day to slip in an out of the traffic - and to leave clumsy tanks for dead on a winding B-road!
What's to do? IMO banning them is far too draconian, and increasing the congestion charge for them would be an adminitrative headache. Better IMO just to do what the French have done and stick a big sales tax on them.
Similar threads
