Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge
- Thread starter Dan U
- Start date
editor said:
Well... I think from the preceeding pages it can be shown that most of comments in that article are flawed... I'd be suprised if this actually goes through... Perhaps Paris might consider a congestion charge if they haven't already...
Oh, and trying to ban something thats popular...? Always a good move that...! Can see that going down a treat with the French Farmers...!
I don't agree.
Call me an old liberal if you like, but in the end I think people should have the choice to buy and use those things if that's what they really want to do. I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of banning things that are potentially - or even actively harmful. I think we live in a world with enough rules and restrictions without introducing more. Rather than banning them, I'd rather see a cultural shift to make their use less acceptable, and some financial incentive not to drive them.
Call me an old liberal if you like, but in the end I think people should have the choice to buy and use those things if that's what they really want to do. I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of banning things that are potentially - or even actively harmful. I think we live in a world with enough rules and restrictions without introducing more. Rather than banning them, I'd rather see a cultural shift to make their use less acceptable, and some financial incentive not to drive them.
Roadkill said:
as has been said i dont think the financial incentive will work.
if you can afford £30k++ for a 4x4 it would have to be a stiff tax or whatever to have an impact
the flipside of that would be that those who live in rural communities and genuinely needs 4x4's will be punitively punished - not everyone in rural britain is a second home owner in the home counties..
editor
hiraethified
People should have the right to do as they please so long as it doesn't impact on the rights of others to do likewise.Roadkill said:
Thing is, I'd say that someone driving around an over-sized, needlessly polluting, space-hogging, respource-guzzling, intimidating and downright dangerous vehicle is most certainly impacting on the rights of others.
editor said:
Well that's the nub of the issue really, isn't it? You have to weigh up the loss of freedom to some against the gains of those negatively affected by their activities. And much as I dislike SUVs, I don't believe that the damage they do is enough to justify yet more restrictions on people's behaviour. That's more an instinctive reaction than a rational argument, I concede, but I worry that as a society we're becoming rather too willing too encroach on people's freedoms, though sometimes out of the best of motives. there are other ways to discourage people from using SUVs than just banning them - such as creating a climate in which their use is seen as vulgar and distasteful. Despite what Dan U says, I think financial incentives do have some part ot play in that too.
Although there SOME practical reasons for disliking the widespread use of "jeep" type vehicles, I do feel that the hatred of them is more for what they are perceived to represent: conspicuous and unnecessary consumption, the attitude of making your self safer and stuff everyone else, vulgar display of wealth, class resentment etc.
The campaign against SUVs is a handy scapegoat.
Why not campaign against Rolls Royces and Bentleys? (or Merc S class saloons, for that matter)
No-one, no-one at all, NEEDS one of these things. There is no equivalent "justification" as there is with 4x4s, where some people can claim they need one at weekends to drive around their farm, tow their boat, etc.
They weigh tons, have 6 litre engines or larger, they take up more roadspace than pretty much all SUVs apart from maybe the Hummer H1, they all do very high maximum speeds, they have abysmal fuel economy. They cost more than most people's houses. Why should they even be made?
Giles..
The campaign against SUVs is a handy scapegoat.
Why not campaign against Rolls Royces and Bentleys? (or Merc S class saloons, for that matter)
No-one, no-one at all, NEEDS one of these things. There is no equivalent "justification" as there is with 4x4s, where some people can claim they need one at weekends to drive around their farm, tow their boat, etc.
They weigh tons, have 6 litre engines or larger, they take up more roadspace than pretty much all SUVs apart from maybe the Hummer H1, they all do very high maximum speeds, they have abysmal fuel economy. They cost more than most people's houses. Why should they even be made?
Giles..
They're saloon cars though, and of an ordinary height. As far as I'm concerned, as a pedestrian and a cyclist, that's what's important. To paraphrase what i said above, get hit by a Rolls Royce and you'll go over the bonnet: get hit by a Range Rover and you go straight under the wheels.
You will want to ban motorbikes next.editor said:
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
Roadkill said:
A tax on high-emission vehicles wouldn't be unfair, since many people on here keep saying that some of these big cars don't actually have high emissions. Personally, I'd love to see an extra tax based on vehicle size (height and width, not just capacity), which could be claimed back by those who actually do need large vehicles. That one probably wouldn't be workable though.
Dangerous etceditor said:
Sorry but when it comes to driving, the argument about banning 4x4s because of the damage they cause in an accident may well hold water because of the size of the vehicle, but, at the end of the day, if you get hit by a transit, a lorry, or a bus, you are going to be just as damaged surely as if you were hit by a 4x4 jeep ?
Possibly even less chance of survival I would have thought and I don't hear calls to ban transits, buses etc.
If it's a safety or environmental argument then there are many other safety issues to resolve first... For example speeding, drink driving etc
Also, it does seem that a lot of the anti- 4x4 debate is based on a dislike of the perceived owners or type of people that own these vehicles ("Chelsea Tractor owners") and it seems more than a little hypocritical to be criticising people for spending their money how they want to
After all, we are supposed to believe in the and support freedom of the individual...................... aren't we ?
End rant ...... sorry
Possibly even less chance of survival I would have thought and I don't hear calls to ban transits, buses etc.
If it's a safety or environmental argument then there are many other safety issues to resolve first... For example speeding, drink driving etc
Also, it does seem that a lot of the anti- 4x4 debate is based on a dislike of the perceived owners or type of people that own these vehicles ("Chelsea Tractor owners") and it seems more than a little hypocritical to be criticising people for spending their money how they want to
After all, we are supposed to believe in the and support freedom of the individual...................... aren't we ?
End rant ...... sorry
And no I don't have a 4x4
P
P
Giles said:
"I know what, I'll buy a machine that might as well have been designed for mincing other people's children - on the (entirely false) excuse that it'll make mine safer. What do those feckless parents whose children spend time outdoors expect, anyway?"
Fuck it. I'm tempted to believe that this is a case where we should stop with the argument already. The electorate should hand the authorities entirely abitrary powers - within this limited area. Some coppers obviously like having an arbitrary "sus law" - and why else would anyone become pseudoplod? So we give them one.
But they have to say the words. Exactly. "Good morning madam, I am from the Style Police and I am impounding your tractor because its presence in Crouch End (wherever) is an offence against taste."
snadge
metal alchemist
there is a physchological condition in a driver to take more risks in a vehicle when he feels s/he is better protected from harm than other car drivers, these people that "feel safer" in a SUV are prime examples, taking risks in traffic knowing they aren't going to get as injured as the other person, fucking road bullies.
OK, I accept the statistics, but I stand by the bulk of my post which was that if you get hit by a bus or commercial vehicle you are going to be as severely damaged as if you are hit by a 4x4. It wasn't about the intended use of a vehicle
And I still think there are other more pressing or just as pressing issues to be dealt with and choosing the easy target of 4x4 owners is an easy option
What I was trying to get at (in my usual sort of left-handed way) is that cars don't cause accidents - the drivers do and if someone is a bad or careless driver then they are a danger, irrespective of the vehicle they are driving!
Of course saying that 4x4s are unsuitable for the school run is an interesting one... personally, I'm of the school of thought that in an ideal world no vehicles are suitable for the school run, but I'll probably get shot down for saying that as parents wouldn't want their children walking to school these days (and rightly so)
But then again I remember my headmaster at junior school some 40 years ago complaing bitterly about parents in cars dropping off the children and picking them up... so it just shows... nothings changed in 40 years
And I still think there are other more pressing or just as pressing issues to be dealt with and choosing the easy target of 4x4 owners is an easy option
What I was trying to get at (in my usual sort of left-handed way) is that cars don't cause accidents - the drivers do and if someone is a bad or careless driver then they are a danger, irrespective of the vehicle they are driving!
Of course saying that 4x4s are unsuitable for the school run is an interesting one... personally, I'm of the school of thought that in an ideal world no vehicles are suitable for the school run, but I'll probably get shot down for saying that as parents wouldn't want their children walking to school these days (and rightly so)
But then again I remember my headmaster at junior school some 40 years ago complaing bitterly about parents in cars dropping off the children and picking them up... so it just shows... nothings changed in 40 years
snadge
metal alchemist
pete_w_one said:OK, I accept the statistics, but I stand by the bulk of my post which was that if you get hit by a bus or commercial vehicle you are going to be as severely damaged as if you are hit by a 4x4. It wasn't about the intended use of a vehicle
And I still think there are other more pressing or just as pressing issues to be dealt with and choosing the easy target of 4x4 owners is an easy option
What I was trying to get at (in my usual sort of left-handed way) is that cars don't cause accidents - the drivers do and if someone is a bad or careless driver then they are a danger, irrespective of the vehicle they are driving!
Of course saying that 4x4s are unsuitable for the school run is an interesting one... personally, I'm of the school of thought that in an ideal world no vehicles are suitable for the school run, but I'll probably get shot down for saying that as parents wouldn't want their children walking to school these days (and rightly so)
But then again I remember my headmaster at junior school some 40 years ago complaing bitterly about parents in cars dropping off the children and picking them up... so it just shows... nothings changed in 40 years
will you please stop lumping 4*4s in one category, the problem is with SUVs.
I have an Audi Quattro and it does not present any of the problems that SUVs present.
snadge said:
I only know a small number of people with 4x4s (4) and because last year I was thinking of a Land Rover, I asked why they had bought them.... Believe it or not, none of them said "it makes them feel safer" was a reason
Better driving position, higher up from the road, being able to see better and being able to carry more in the vehicle were the reasons given
I've been driving for years (150 miles a day) for the last few years and believe me I don't feel safe on the roads because I'm fully aware that it's not about me having a false sense of "safety" it's about awareness, driving to conditions, leaving gaps etc
I've gone past the aftermath of a significant number of accidents in the last week alone - one transit in a ditch on the M23, 2 lorry fires on M25, 2 cars ran into each other looking at one of the lorry fires, 1 car head on into a small commercial van on the A281 and come to the conclusion again that bad driving is the real problem we face not bad vehicles
P
Similar threads
