Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge

[jæd]

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.

Um... How tall are you...? I'm 5ft 8inches, and I don't find them intimidating, or towering over city streets... What do you make of Double-deckker buses...?

 

[editor]

And to drive, sitting higher up gives a much better view of the road ahead.

And a much greater chance of killing fellow drivers and pedestrians.

SOMEONE struck by a large sports utility vehicle is more than twice as likely to die as someone hit by a saloon car travelling at the same speed. The finding by American researchers will add further weight to calls for SUVs - sporty vehicles with a high, blunt-fronted body atop a broad chassis - to be made safer.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024253.300.html

People in small cars are 12 times more likely to be killed than those in a 4x4 when the vehicles collide, according to the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL). The study found that the rise in sales of 4x4s and people-carriers was causing more than 20 extra deaths and serious injuries a year among people in small cars.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1534514,00.html

 

[trashpony]

If you want the best view walk or ride.

So not liking SUVs is okay if you're a cyclist or a pedestrian but not if you're a driver or motorbike rider?

 

[lighterthief]

I still don't find them "intimidating", any more than I find buses, coaches, vans or lorries "intimidating".

As a cyclist in London I find all of the above intimidating.

 

[editor]

What do you make of Double-deckker buses...?

Not this again.

Double decker buses are built to carry large amounts of passengers. Therefore they need to be large.

However, if they were built in the aggressive , over-sized style of a SUV and driven accordingly, I'd certainly find them considerably more intimidating.

 

[fredfelt]

So not liking SUVs is okay if you're a cyclist or a pedestrian but not if you're a driver or motorbike rider?

Like what you will. You'll simply get the best views of the world if you do not have steel and glass wrapped all around you!

 

[trashpony]

Like what you will. You'll simply get the best views of the world if you do not have steel and glass wrapped all around you!

Yes I know. I was making my point in specific response to giles' that driving an SUV affords him a better view. Personally I'm not keen on being behind them on my bicycle either - it's no better or worse.

 

[laptop]

If I ever learn to drive, it's got to be one of these:

I expect the fuel consumption is worse than an SUV, but the hazard to other road users slightly less

 

[fredfelt]

If I ever learn to drive, it's got to be one of these:



I expect the fuel consumption is worse than an SUV, but the hazard to other road users slightly less

The tank is where the SUV argument ends.

1. In order for me to be safe with SUV's on the road I must get a bigger vehicle

2. What other vehicle can I fit all the kids in for the school run and not risk getting scratched when parking

3. How to get justice with people who put fake parking tickets on my vehicle

4. Protect myself from any attacks from anyone trying to scratch my vehicle

5. I can sit on the roof to get a good view

6. Is it selfish of me to dirve a tank to protect myself and my family from contact with any other road user?

7. I will not even notice it when I run over any inconvient pedestrians or cyclists who get in MY way

 

[Giles]

People in small cars are 12 times more likely to be killed than those in a 4x4 when the vehicles collide, according to the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL). The study found that the rise in sales of 4x4s and people-carriers was causing more than 20 extra deaths and serious injuries a year among people in small cars.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...534514,00.html

So, people-carriers are also bad, then? Obviously, smaller vehicles afford less accident protection than bigger ones. This has always been the case.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Should everyone be forced to drive small, lightweight cars, just so no-one has a better chance of survival in an accident?

What if you have 4 kids and want a Renault Espace or similar? They are big and high. Or, god forbid, a 7 seater jeep of some kind? Should you have to travel in 2 small cars so as not to offend other road users? I don't buy this at all.

Giles..

 

[The Groke]

but the hazard to other road users slightly less

Not if its loaded surely....

Not sure I would be able to keep my finger from the trigger - especially here in Dubai...

 

[laptop]

Not if its loaded surely....

I was relying on my good sense and calm temperament

Aided by the security of knowing my vehicle was harder than anything else on the road.

 

[rich!]

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.

So, heavy vehicles are even more damaging on crappy roads than usual - and, presumably, driving on low-grade country roads, off-road entirely, and so forth, a vehicle with 50% heavier axle-weight goes from 5 times more damaging to 11 times more damaging.

Good argument for keeping heavy vehicles to high-quality roads, not countryside

 

[rich!]

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Do you mind if those of us choosing to use non-polluting transport spend the money we saved on rocket-propelled grenades? I choose to clear the road ahead of people in motor vehicles....





(in fact, the modern mountain bike with suspension should take an RPG-launching facility pretty well. May yet become the latest urban cyclist accessory...)

And remember: studies show an RPG-equipped cyclist is no more dangerous, pound for pound, than an SUV.

 

[Termite Man]

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.

Estate cars are not suitable , to use my father as an example again , he used an estate car but it didn't have the right capapcity to put the stuff in and an SUV did , as for the small van since the SUV is the business and personal vehicle either you think he should get 2 vehicles or he could stick my nephew in the back of the van where it's really unsafe ! I know which option I'd prefer ( and it's the one that doesn't risk my nephews life ) .

 

[fredfelt]

Giles,

Do you accept that climate change is real and as a direct result of human activity?
Do you accept that in a society one should pay for their consumption and the effect of this consumption on others?
Do you accept that one should not be more vunrable when on the road because they cannot afford to invest in a large and ofton expensive vehicle?

If you accept the above I cannot see a reason one can justify driving an overspecified vehicle as you are just adding to the problems.

If you reject the above please state your objections. Lets get to the heart of the matter.

 

[Pie 1]

My description of SUVs is perfectly accurate.

No, it's not.
It is a description of your opinion.

Tabloids do this a lot. Dressing up opinion as fact.

 

[Giles]

Giles,

Do you accept that climate change is real and as a direct result of human activity?
Do you accept that in a society one should pay for their consumption and the effect of this consumption on others?
Do you accept that one should not be more vunrable when on the road because they cannot afford to invest in a large and ofton expensive vehicle?

If you accept the above I cannot see a reason one can justify driving an overspecified vehicle as you are just adding to the problems.

If you reject the above please state your objections. Lets get to the heart of the matter.

Climate change: yes, up to a point. I also think that "climate change" very conveniently provides the powers-that-be in many countries with an excuse for loads more taxes and restrictions on people's behaviour.

Your second point, no, not really. Who are you supposed to "pay for your consumption" and how does that make that consumption OK because you have paid for it?

Third point, no. You can choose what kind of car to drive. To take your statement to its logical conclusion, everyone would have to drive the same car, to iron out inequalities in safety, and I regard that as an intolerable intrusion on people's freedom. Some people want a sports car, some people want a van, some people want a Volvo, some people want a hatchback. Some people will be able to afford a brand-new car, bristling with airbags, extra steel bars in the doors, and all sorts of safety technology. Other people will be stuck with a 15 year old car.

What you can "justify" to yourself is a question of how green you want to be. Real greens would feel that they can't justify owning any kind of car at all, and won't take planes. Others assuage their conscience with Toyota Prius's etc, others will draw the line at a small car. I reserve the right to drive what I want. I don't have an SUV, by the way.

Giles..

 

[Pie 1]

To take your statement to its logical conclusion, everyone would have to drive the same car, to iron out inequalities in safety,

And the last time that happened, the bugger's had fibreglass bodywork and ended up hanging precariously, nose end over U2 concerts.

 

[fredfelt]

Thanks for that Giles, briefly...

At heart I'm a capatilist and believe that people should have choice over how they spend their cash. However it is up to the state to tax folk for consumption which has a negative affect upon society. So if you choose to drive a bigger car which consumes more then it should be paid for. Therefore paying a fair price for your consumption can make it fair as the taxes go back to society to pay for your 'external costs' on society.

The point I was making about vunrability is based on the argument that 'I dirve a big fuck off car to protect my kids and myself'. If we follow this argument for a road user to be safe they must always get a bigger vehicle, such as a tank.

Drive what you want. Just pay for it.

On a personal note I was involved in an accident with a 4x4. The Range Rover rolled as it had a blow out on the motorway. The driver died, passangers badly hurt and the acident caused carnage. It would not have rolled with a regular veicle. This is one of many reasons why I believe financial tools should be used to make them more socially unacceptable.

I no longer have a car. I can not justify owing one. Personally I think car ownership and usage is far too cheap and a driver does not even come close to paying for the real cost of car usage.

 

[Termite Man]

So if you choose to drive a bigger car which consumes more then it should be paid for. Therefore paying a fair price for your consumption can make it fair as the taxes go back to society to pay for your 'external costs' on society.


Drive what you want. Just pay for it.

What about fuel duty then . If SUV's are so polluting and uneconomical then surely they will do less MPG than other vehicles so the owners will be paying more tax on fuel to travel the same distance as someone in a more fuel efficient car , what your wanting to do is use a system put in place to reduce congestion in London - which is why it's called a congestion charge - to further your political aims .

I support the congestion charge if it's being used for it's stated purpose but if it's being used as taxation through the back door and for people to push their political agenda , which is what seems to be suggested by comments on this thread and the article I would rather see it abolished !

 

[Termite Man]

and I've found an SUV game as well

http://www.esuvee.com/game/

 

[editor]

No, it's not.
It is a description of your opinion.
Tabloids do this a lot. Dressing up opinion as fact.

Well, let's hear you challenge it then.

Here we go. I said that SUVs are:

1. Needlessly over-engineered
2. Resource hogging
3. Dangerous

 

[editor]

If SUV's are so polluting and uneconomical then surely they will do less MPG than other vehicles so the owners will be paying more tax on fuel to travel the same distance as someone in a more fuel efficient car , what your wanting to do is use a system put in place to reduce congestion in London - which is why it's called a congestion charge - to further your political aims .

Why don't you think that people should be actively encouraged to drive city-friendly, pedestrian friendly, low polluting vehicles with low fuel consumption?

 

[Termite Man]

Why don't you think that people should be actively encouraged to drive city-friendly, pedestrian friendly, low polluting vehicles with low fuel consumption?

I do think they should be encouraged to drive pedestrian friendly , low polluting vehicles with low fuel consumption that is why you'll notice I haven't said SUV's aren't polluting or city unfriendly anywhere if you want to check back through my posts . I just think shoving extra congestion charge for SUV is an oversimplistic way of doing it and to me it sounds like people wanting to use a system intended for 1 purpose to serve their own needs , a thing which most people on this board would be up in arms about if it was a subject we disagreed with .
There have been alternatives to increasing the congestion charge suggested but you you haven't commented on those yet , and increasing the congestion charge will only have an impact on London , why not try to find an alternative action that will benefit the whole country ?

 

[Pie 1]

Well, let's hear you challenge it then.

Here we go. I said that SUVs are:

1. Needlessly over-engineered
2. Resource hogging
3. Dangerous

Most new vehicles are over engineered
All vehicles are resource hogging
All vehicles, by their very nature, are dangerous.


You forgot:
4. Over-inflated chunk of menacing metal
5. Bulked out
6. Intimidating
7. Over-priced
8. Fashion statements

Do you not conceed that they are your opinions, and not a factual description?
This is not about whether or not I agree with SUV's. It is about your ability to have a reasoned debate on the subject without resorting to semi hyserical ranting when offered opinions and data that counter your opinion of SUV's

 

[editor]

This is not about whether or not I agree with SUV's. It is about your ability to have a reasoned debate on the subject without resorting to semi hyserical ranting when offered opinions and data that counter your opinion of SUV's

I see you still haven't troubled yourself to actually answer any of my points - in particular about the increased danger posed by these vehicles.

As for the other bits you're requoted:

4. Over-inflated chunk of menacing metal - yep, that's my opinion on some SUVs
5. Bulked out - absolutely true. They don't need to be that big.
6. Intimidating - to a lot of people, absolutely (look it up)
7. Over-priced - for the functionality, no question about it
8. Fashion statements - to a lot of people, most certainly.

See, I'm prepared to engage with this debate, whereas you're only capable of poting up a stream of increasingly tedious ad hominen attacks ("Semi hysterical ranting", FFS)

 

[fredfelt]

What about fuel duty then . If SUV's are so polluting and uneconomical then surely they will do less MPG than other vehicles so the owners will be paying more tax on fuel to travel the same distance as someone in a more fuel efficient car , what your wanting to do is use a system put in place to reduce congestion in London - which is why it's called a congestion charge - to further your political aims .

I support the congestion charge if it's being used for it's stated purpose but if it's being used as taxation through the back door and for people to push their political agenda , which is what seems to be suggested by comments on this thread and the article I would rather see it abolished !

Thats a fine argument if you accept that tax on fuel covers the true cost of burinng it. I do not. Burning more fuel costs society more.

Take a look at a interesting article by George Monbiet entitled 'Passive Driving' , which references a EU paper attributing 39,000 deaths in this country which are caused or hastened by air pollution. Fuel duty cannot pay for this.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11/01/passive-driving/

 

[Pie 1]

I'm prepared to engage with this debate, whereas you're only capable of poting up a stream of increasingly tedious ad hominen attacks

And if our arguing roles were the other way around, you wouldn't be pressing me to clarify such issues as fact & opinion? Bollocks.

Back at you.

 

[editor]

And if our arguing roles were the other way around, you wouldn't be pressing me to clarify such issues as fact & opinion? Bollocks.

I see you're still doing your very best to avoid engaging with the debate. so I'll make it easier for you and do it one point at a time.

Research has proved 4x4s to be more dangerous to both other cars and pedestrians.

Can you refute this and if not, why are you defending the supposed right of people to selfishly endanger others by driving vehicles that are more likely to maim and kill?