Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge
- Thread starter Dan U
- Start date
subversplat
writer of wrongs
I already suggested this and everybody ignored meSavage Henry said:
*jumps around and points at self*
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
subversplat said:I already suggested this and everybody ignored me
*jumps around and points at self*
top of page 2 ! I saw it and thought it was a great idea thats why I stole it !
Changing the driving test groups would not be easy (the groups are supposed to be standardised across the E.U.) and would have serious consequences for lots of other drivers - you are allowed to drive a 3 ton van on a normal car licence, and also a 16 seater minibus.
So I can't see an easy way of picking out "SUVs" as a separate class of vehicle without imposing needless new driving tests and restrictions on millions of other drivers, since most SUVs are nowhere near as big, heavy etc as what you can already drive on a car licence.
Giles..
So I can't see an easy way of picking out "SUVs" as a separate class of vehicle without imposing needless new driving tests and restrictions on millions of other drivers, since most SUVs are nowhere near as big, heavy etc as what you can already drive on a car licence.
Giles..
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
Giles said:
Which brings us to the question of should the higher congestion charge also include vehicles like 16 seater minibusses or 3 ton vans ?
subversplat
writer of wrongs
You're going to go far in lifeSavage Henry said:
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
subversplat said:You're going to go far in life
Not if I steal more of your ideas !
Lets clarify some misconceptions, the grams per kilogram, the measurement for CO2 emissions for vehicles does not vary according to vehicle.
Manufacturering standards and UK requirements demand that capacity ( cubic centimentres) of engines will meet CO2 emission requiremts. Therefore if a 2500 cc engine is in a 4x4 the emission will compare with a 2500 cc engine in a car. In some cases, performance cars have higher g/kilo outputs than comparable 4x4. It is also evident that some luxury saloons have a higher putput than 4x4s. All of comparable engine size.
The continued argument that 4x4 are gas guzzling monster also falls down under scrutiny. The variance between saloons, 4x4 and sports vehicles, all of similar engine sizes, is only 2 to 3 miles per gallon. Now, when you consider the fact that 4x4 are usual of a lower gear ratio than performance saloons it is evident that the 4x4 engine is actually more efficient.
The arguments of size and height of bumper needs a physical tests and finding the variance. A long standing joke was that the comparisons of bumper height between a Mini and a Rolls Royce was virtually nil. Because of the Over riders on the Rolls covered a greater area and allowed a matching height with the mini.
It is easy to target a style of vehicle to use as social misfit but the whole mass of dis-information about the vehicle does not stand close scrutiny. The need to compare like with like and not just to use some of the infomation in an attempt to justify some misconcieved argument. The most surprising element is that professional bodies make unfounded claims without any statistical information to substaniate their claims.
Having someone say more 4x4 kill speople than other vehicles is, at close inspection a spurious and totally misleading statement. The therory that a side impact would overun a smaller saloon again is spurious and misleaading.
The smaller veehicle will, as has been proved, slide along a road before any possibility of overturning is ever reached. A Foden 32 ton truck pushed a rover 2200 saloon along the entrance road to the Hammersmith fly-over and both vehicle came to a standstill without any ' turning over' of the smaller vehicle. The discrepancy in bumper height to car is greater than the 4x4 and the average car.
The smaller sorts car, Mazda, Lotus, etx have a much lower profile and are at equal risk from vans, commercial vehicle and trucks as from 4x4 so it would be unrealistic to make the statement without qualification.
Manufacturering standards and UK requirements demand that capacity ( cubic centimentres) of engines will meet CO2 emission requiremts. Therefore if a 2500 cc engine is in a 4x4 the emission will compare with a 2500 cc engine in a car. In some cases, performance cars have higher g/kilo outputs than comparable 4x4. It is also evident that some luxury saloons have a higher putput than 4x4s. All of comparable engine size.
The continued argument that 4x4 are gas guzzling monster also falls down under scrutiny. The variance between saloons, 4x4 and sports vehicles, all of similar engine sizes, is only 2 to 3 miles per gallon. Now, when you consider the fact that 4x4 are usual of a lower gear ratio than performance saloons it is evident that the 4x4 engine is actually more efficient.
The arguments of size and height of bumper needs a physical tests and finding the variance. A long standing joke was that the comparisons of bumper height between a Mini and a Rolls Royce was virtually nil. Because of the Over riders on the Rolls covered a greater area and allowed a matching height with the mini.
It is easy to target a style of vehicle to use as social misfit but the whole mass of dis-information about the vehicle does not stand close scrutiny. The need to compare like with like and not just to use some of the infomation in an attempt to justify some misconcieved argument. The most surprising element is that professional bodies make unfounded claims without any statistical information to substaniate their claims.
Having someone say more 4x4 kill speople than other vehicles is, at close inspection a spurious and totally misleading statement. The therory that a side impact would overun a smaller saloon again is spurious and misleaading.
The smaller veehicle will, as has been proved, slide along a road before any possibility of overturning is ever reached. A Foden 32 ton truck pushed a rover 2200 saloon along the entrance road to the Hammersmith fly-over and both vehicle came to a standstill without any ' turning over' of the smaller vehicle. The discrepancy in bumper height to car is greater than the 4x4 and the average car.
The smaller sorts car, Mazda, Lotus, etx have a much lower profile and are at equal risk from vans, commercial vehicle and trucks as from 4x4 so it would be unrealistic to make the statement without qualification.
Descartes said:
Well you see some 4x4s have this ability to do staaaaarnge things you see...see?
Has anyone mention the extra wear and tear of tyres/parts/oils/brakes pads and fluids/suspension/gear boxes and parts/drive shafts/extra fkkkn plaggi-watchamacallits in use of 4x4s....yet?
IMHO the engine is only the start of 4x4 stuff.
*not that I belittle pedestrian damage...I jus like to assume that that is actually the least of the problems...even if they monumental they still are little in comparison to all the other shite they bring into Central London...noooo neeeed!
Giles said:
As were LWB Landys last-time I sold one to someone in Chelsea.
editor
hiraethified
You're missing the point spectacularly.Descartes said:
By buying a needlessly over-engineered, resource hogging, dangerous, bulked out intimidating beast of a fashion statement, the owner is pumping out far more pollution than if they bought a car appropriate to their needs rather than their desire to look stylish.
You might say it's their right to buy any massive car they choose.
I'd say that their responsibility to the environment, other drivers and pedestrians should come before their need to look hip.
Descartes said:
wear and tear on roads goes up with the fourth power of the axle load of the vehicle. (Which is why the new >40ton load capacity lorries must have 6 axles)
(source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506830.hcsp at the bottom)
So a 50% heavier 2-axle vehicle is 2.44 times more damaging to the roads it traverses.
Which, coincidentally, is almost exactly the increase in congestion charge they would be paying under this plan!
laptop said:Has it been settled? Last I checked, the Department of Transport wasn't sure whether it was the fourth power - or the sixth
oooh, interesting. That was a DFT page; Hansard quotes "fourth power", but I've seen "cubed" bandied around.
*goes off to worship at google again*
Australian statistical modelling of road damage, 2001, fourth power:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00128000002000103000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Wikipedia on 1950's measured study, establishes fourth-power result:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHO_Road_Test
you got a reference for that sixth power? 'cos that would be very high wear indeed...
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
editor said:Why would a business need a Sports Utility Vehicle?
I've covered that allready , read my posts please then you'll know
editor
hiraethified
No. All you've done is present a case where a business might need an estate car or a small van, but you haven't come up with a remoitely credible reason why a city business would need a large, extra-rugged, fashionable sports vehicle designed for off road activities.Savage Henry said:
How is a Land Rover "intimidating"?
I don't anthropomorphise cars and trucks when I drive around, and I am sure that most other people don't either.
I drove past a double decker bus yesterday (several of them in fact) and I didn't even feel "intimidated" by them, and they are quite big!
Giles..
I don't anthropomorphise cars and trucks when I drive around, and I am sure that most other people don't either.
I drove past a double decker bus yesterday (several of them in fact) and I didn't even feel "intimidated" by them, and they are quite big!
Giles..
editor said:
So you would rather a business in London would buy a car and a van...? And then pay for the maintaining of both...? Using double the resources so that your prejudice is met...? And where shall this small business park both its vehicles...?
Giles said:
What was the comment I made...? Something about the opponents of 4x4's using emotive arguments. And the Editor said *I* was stereotyping...!
editor
hiraethified
It's big. It's large. It's tall. You can't see over it. If you're a cyclist you can't see the road ahead. They tower over city streets. They're over-sized for the job. They're simply too chuffing big for city streets and are DANGEROUS to others.Giles said:
Morevoer, they represent a needless waste of resources and because of their needless bulk, weight and size they create needless pollution in the name of fashion.
rich! said:
Just the one so far:
So it appears to be a higher power than four for roads on soggy substrate. Such as over a leaking water main or other incipient pothole.
NB: I'm not asserting the damage does go as the sixth power of axle weight: I am saying that as far as I can tell it's not settled what the relatioship is.
editor said:It's big. It's large. It's tall. You can't see over it. If you're a cyclist you can't see the road ahead. They tower over city streets. They're over-sized for the job. They're simply too chuffing big for city streets and are DANGEROUS to others.
Morevoer, they represent a needless waste of resources and because of their needless bulk, weight and size they create needless pollution in the name of fashion.
I still don't find them "intimidating", any more than I find buses, coaches, vans or lorries "intimidating". And to drive, sitting higher up gives a much better view of the road ahead.
Giles..
Similar threads
