Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge

angry bob

all things are space
aurora green said:
Can't see how anyone could argue effectively against it actually...

Well I'll have a try ;)

To be really fair surely the congestion charge should be linked to the CO2 emissions in a way that doesnt have the arbitrary cut off of 225g/km of CO2.

Who came up with that figure anyway? And why? Why should someone driving a 224g/km car pay much less than someone driving a 226g/km car?

Surely the charge should be in direct proportion to the level of emissions? i.e. 1 pound for every 10g/km.

And then you would need to take into account the number of people in a vehicle. i.e. a minibus with 10 people produces less emmisions per person than 10 people driving individual (though fuel efficient) cars.

Problem is though it'd all get very complicated. Then you'd need a workforce, all of whom have to drive to work, working in a heated building (which will, of course result in increased pollution).
 

Monkeygrinder's Organ

Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
angry bob said:
And then you would need to take into account the number of people in a vehicle. i.e. a minibus with 10 people produces less emmisions per person than 10 people driving individual (though fuel efficient) cars.
No you wouldn't. If you have a vehicle with high emmissions it makes sense to charge for that. If there are more people in the vehicle then they can split the charge, so the amount paid per individual will be proportional to the emmissions per individual.

The rest is fair enough though, it is an arbitrary cut off point. I'd rather see a sliding scale of some sort. Although I have no idea of the technicalities involved.
 

boskysquelch

Banned
Banned
editor said:
Nah. Just slap a fucking huge charge on those selfish tossers in 4x4s/SUVs.
I agree with this version...but 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.:confused:


e2a ::: I reckon this applicable to all Cities actuarsey. :)
 

Crispy

The following psytrance is baṉned: All
But how would you know which vehicle is outputting more CO2?
(or am I gormless and this sort of thing is on tax discs these days)
 

Dan U

Boompty
Crispy said:
But how would you know which vehicle is outputting more CO2?
(or am I gormless and this sort of thing is on tax discs these days)
:oops: nope i am the gormless one!

i thought u meant the exclusion of 4x4's :D
 

BrixiSteve

Reluctant Human
Ok, so 4x4's are bad and we base this on CO2 output...? If that is the case I don't know why 4x4's are being singled out. There are many cars on the road that have much bigger CO2 output than your average 4x4. Most older luxury cars, for example. If the problem is the size, again, many other cars on the road have an equal (if not greater) length wheel base as your average 4x4. If the issue is safty, well, hit a person in any car and the results can be pretty nasty. I think the whole picture needs to be considered and the 4x4 bullies need to get over themselves.
 

ViolentPanda

Hardly getting over it.
BrixiSteve said:
Ok, so 4x4's are bad and we base this on CO2 output...? If that is the case I don't know why 4x4's are being singled out. There are many cars on the road that have much bigger CO2 output than your average 4x4. Most older luxury cars, for example. If the problem is the size, again, many other cars on the road have an equal (if not greater) length wheel base as your average 4x4. If the issue is safty, well, hit a person in any car and the results can be pretty nasty. I think the whole picture needs to be considered and the 4x4 bullies need to get over themselves.

As far as I can work out the thing about older cars is the volume.

if they're over 3 yrs old they're subject to MOT. If they fail emissions testing they fail the MOT.

If they're pre-1975 they're subject to a visual rather than an exhaust emissions testing, but the volume of such cars is small enough to have a negligible impact on emissions figures
 

editor

hiraethified
BrixiSteve said:
think the whole picture needs to be considered and the 4x4 bullies need to get over themselves.
4x4 Bullies?!!!!

Bwahaha!

I think you'll find the person buying a large, intimidating, resource-hogging, pedestrian-endangering, fellow driver-endangering, all-polluting, oversized and over-engineered metal box on wheels is the 'bully' around here.
 

Dan U

Boompty
editor said:
I think you'll find the person buying a large, intimidating, resource-hogging, pedestrian-endangering, fellow driver-endangering, all-polluting, oversized and over-engineered metal box on wheels is the 'bully' around here.
which they then use to drive to the school, waitrose and thats about it :mad:
 

Poot

Everyone's a superhero, everyone's a Captain Kirk
editor said:
4x4 Bullies?!!!!

Bwahaha!

I think you'll find the person buying a large, intimidating, resource-hogging, pedestrian-endangering, fellow driver-endangering, all-polluting, oversized and over-engineered metal box on wheels is the 'bully' around here.
I also think they drive in a more aggressive manner (which is particularly unnecessary when you're cocooned in a tank-like metal shell with bull-bars!). Just my experience, but it's what I've found.
 

Poot

Everyone's a superhero, everyone's a Captain Kirk
boskysquelch said:
I agree with this version...but 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.:confused:


e2a ::: I reckon this applicable to all Cities actuarsey. :)
I agree with all you've said except that I work with people who frequently have to drive into muddy fields as a part of their job. They then have to return to their office in the middle of Plymouth. They genuinely need 4x4s. However, they are the only people I've met who do!
 

Monkeygrinder's Organ

Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
BrixiSteve said:
Ok, so 4x4's are bad and we base this on CO2 output...? If that is the case I don't know why 4x4's are being singled out. There are many cars on the road that have much bigger CO2 output than your average 4x4. Most older luxury cars, for example. If the problem is the size, again, many other cars on the road have an equal (if not greater) length wheel base as your average 4x4. If the issue is safty, well, hit a person in any car and the results can be pretty nasty. I think the whole picture needs to be considered and the 4x4 bullies need to get over themselves.
That'll be why the proposal isn't specifically relating to 4x4s, even though it's being reported like that.
 

editor

hiraethified
UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage. Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident...

In October 2005, the British Medical Journal called for health warnings on 4x4s because of the dangers they pose for pedestrians...

...the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has described 4x4s as "totally unsuitable for the school run."
http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/safety.htm
'Nuff said.
 

geminisnake

a complex mass of conflicting ideas
boskysquelch said:
I agree with this version...but 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.:confused:


e2a ::: I reckon this applicable to all Cities actuarsey. :)

While I agree there is no need for them in central London you can't say that of all cities. Aberdeen and Inverness are surrounded by people who NEED their 4x4s, and some of those people only have that one vehicle.

Are they never to go into a city again? Don't think so.
 

trashpony

Ovaries and tings
^^^^ s'true.

London hasn't got anywhere you can reasonably drive a 4x4 for about a 60 mile radius :(

I'd just like to see one 4x4 in London which has actually got some dirt on it :mad:
 

Descartes

Member
The argument of 4x4 is pandering to a social image, the capacity and emission of the modern 4x4 is less than the ten year old saloon car. The modern petrol engine is a very fuel efficient unit and does not contribute any where near the supposed levels hinted at by the Red Ken brigade.

The 4x4 also comes in a diesel powered version, how do you regulate agianst a totally different emissions, if you clamp down on 4x4 diesels, what about the commeercial vehicles powered by diesels?

The average 4x4 engine is no larger or having greater emission levels than a lot of luxury cars and most of the vehicles used by MPs easily fall into this category.

Consider the Land Rover freelander, 2 litre diesel engine, a smaller diesel engine than a BMW 53o, the same size as a Rover 820, which do you ban, the 4x4 because it's bigger, well check the wheel base aginast the BMW, the width against a volvo estate..

The argument is pandering to the very lowest, targetting a vehicle because of a percieved image.

The high performance vehicle from Mitsubishi, Isuzu, Ford,etc all have higher emission than the equalvilant diesel and because of its sporting genre are usually driven at higher speeds where engines are emitting higher emission levels.

the whole argument is flawed and should note even be considered in an enlighten society.

Prejudice against a vehicle type is usually becaue of ignorance, a poor reason for any type of exclusion.
 

Dan U

Boompty
where those accident stats posted perceived?

or the physical size of the vehicles. london is a crowded city.

thats two whole other arguements, got a PR release for those? :rolleyes:
 

trashpony

Ovaries and tings
Same tired old argument Descartes.

Even this site http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php can't seem to find anything to say in favour of the beasts other than wail 'well other big cars are just as bad'. Well don't drive a huge fucking car in London.

Speed in London? Are you joking? The average vehicle speed is iirc 13mph. Most of the vehicles used by MPs are just as bad? So what? What's that got to do with Jemima ferrying her sprogs to Kensington?

The fact is with 4x4s is that they are among the worst cars for driving in London - they're too big, they're environmentally unfriendly and they are dangerous to pedestrians and other road users. Granted, there are other cars that are just as bad but that tends to be one or two top of the range models from each manufacturer. The one thing that these have in common is that they're a stupid fucking status symbol for people whose brains are smaller than their wallets.

Of course a law won't be brought in specifically to target 4x4s but they are an easily visible group of cars.

What good reason does anyone have for owning and driving one of these in London? Give me one.
 

boskysquelch

Banned
Banned
geminisnake said:
Are they never to go into a city again? Don't think so.
park and ride...getta bus...car pool...lift with a neighbour/family friend...Online shopping...sorry but IMHO that answer dunt cut it anymore.. I too have done the whole decades of 4x4 coz I had to in forestry/conservation/farming....ironically mostly around Plymouth@Poot.....I'll even accept that most 4x4s are more efficient, produce less greenhouse gases, can transport more etc blahblahblah...but ffs this is not why they are being used is it?

Okay I'll give you those that work and require a vehicle which is utilitarian as such (eg for trailer use moving stock, vegetation,feed or work kit). Or even those who are currently live and work in an environment as extreme the Highlands, the Moors, Peak District, The Lakes or Wales etc

But again most people drive 4x4s coz they can...not coz they have too. And most surprisingly MOST of the 4x4 owners wouldn't know what to do with their 4x4 even if they found themselves REALLY needing the facility of a 4x4.

Everyone I know who "really" works in the country, or for the countryside, comes into town with their 2wheel drive run around...only the Wankers still pose in their 4x4's.. anyone who isn't a wanker has money to burn in my experience. Most cost at least twice as much to run, overall....and I've at 10 years worth of experience with a variety of self maintained Landys (classic & modern), Nissans, Daihatsus* and some other Ruski-types I'm glad to forget!

I daren't even consider the damage they do to roads, street furniture or people and their possesions.

Sorry, but for domestic use forget it....it's about time they were well an truly phrakked_off urbanwise.:p

Finally ,,,and I promise not to come back to rant more...but this figure of CO2 emission weight really phreaks meh out...that's a whole kilo every 4km(roughly)...a bag of sugar jus plopped out to where exactly? :(

Am I the only one that finds this horrific?:oops:
 

Descartes

Member
Speed in London? Are you joking? The average vehicle speed is iirc 13mph.

LOL. of course you can speed in London, Sheherds Bush to Sloane Street in a hurry. throw the speed limit out of the window... In a hurry, Park Lane, easily well above the 30 mph... easily... obviously you do not drive in London...

OK how many people disliking 4x4 own a car and drive in London?

Why is a 4x4 any more dangerous than your average white van man?

Please, not just opinions, some figures please.


The acceleration speeds of a lot of large cars will put them above the speed limit a lot quicker than it takes to read this .. BMW 540, 60 mph in the suburbs, no problem.. The Mall is a favourite, the traffic light grand prixs are usually good for .. but hey not everyone has fun or gets a buzz from things like that.
 
Top