Gas guzzling 4x4s and sports cars to pay more for parking
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
editor said:
It's abosolutley pointless. It's best to hit car owners at the petrol pumps, if we are to fight pollution. If I was one of those 4x4 owners, I would simply use the thing more, if I had to pay more for my parking.
Who pollutes more? A Vectra driver who does 40,000 miles a year, or a 4x4 owner who does 5000 miles a year?
Yet you would have one to pay more for their parking than the other. It doesn't make sense.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Griff said:
From the article:
It proposes a sliding scale of charges for parking permits based on the government's car tax bands.
Band A, which would be free, would consist of electric cars, while vehicles covered under band G would include petrol 4x4s, the Jaguar X-type and the Renault Espace people carrier.
So its based on emmisions.
Griff
Feeding the foxes
TonkaToy said:
Much as I dislike 4x4s for a variety of reasons, I did see something like this coming a while ago. I thought other sorts of cars would be hit too.
So if I lived there would I have to pay more for my parking for my 35 year old car which is used a couple of sunny weekends a year than somebody in a Vectra doing 40,000 a year. Just because the emssions on my car are more?
Totally unworkable.
Griff said:So if I lived there would I have to pay more for my parking for my 35 year old car which is used a couple of sunny weekends a year than somebody in a Vectra doing 40,000 a year. Just because the emssions on my car are more?
Totally unworkable.
Probably workable, but probably also stupid. The manufacture of a car does more environmental than the lifetime's use of the vehicle. We should be encouraging the extension of a car's period of service and the consequent reduction in manufacturing.
editor said:
But such a person already pays more at the pump in the way of taxes.
It's like saying "You're rich, so not only should you be paying more in income tax, but at the shops you should be liable for 20% Vat rather than 17.5%" - It's punishing people twice. I would much rather the emphasis was on responsible car use, rather than just going after people who have luxury motors.
I'm more worried about people who use their cars when they could walk or insist on using the bloody thing every day to commute when there is no need, than say a 4x4 which is used for an average of 2 short trips a day - e.g. the school runs.
The Groke
hot hail/Paging Dr. Beat
Idaho said:
Absolutely!
If some poor bugger can only afford a shit old car with poor emissions gets stung for a 700 quid parking bill, how does that help anyone?
What about the fact that an Espace can carry significantly more people per journey than a 2 seater sports car - why isn't that taken into account?
Yet again, a really iffy solution to a genuine problem.
editor said:
Hold on a minute, you still haven't answered the question about USAGE. It's car USAGE that pollutes, not the fact the car has a bigger engine and all the rest of it. There is a whole shit load of parameters involved here, that goes way beyond the price and engine size of a car.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Griff said:Much as I dislike 4x4s for a variety of reasons, I did see something like this coming a while ago. I thought other sorts of cars would be hit too.
So if I lived there would I have to pay more for my parking for my 35 year old car which is used a couple of sunny weekends a year than somebody in a Vectra doing 40,000 a year. Just because the emssions on my car are more?
Totally unworkable.
However with the existing system you have no choice but to pay for your parking permit. With the new system if you are really concerned with the cost of your parking it is now within your power to reduce or eliminate parking fees by changing your car.
So you have a highly polluting vehicle and you use it just a little. Surely its better to have an efficient vehicle which is used the same amount?
As for unworkable. It is actually very easy to implement as it comes from your vehicle registration document. I assume that this vehicles registered before emissions were recorded on this document will have to come under the same band, no matter what their emissions.
Griff
Feeding the foxes
BigPhil said:
I use a very economical diesel the majority of the time.
If you don't understand why I have the car I do, for the very little times I drive it, then there is no point talking to you.
Why not ban Formula 1? Or make it more environmentally friendly.
Electric car racing?
editor
hiraethified
Err, I'm all for reducing ALL car usage. And bigger cars pollute more so if people are encouraged to both use smaller, more efficient cars and reduce their usage, then that's a good thing.TonkaToy said:
But there's not much point reducing usage if ten-ton 4x4s end up polluting as much as smaller cars making longer journeys, is it?
Idaho
continuity character
As others are saying - it is a genuine problem that this solution clumsily fails to address.
I realise Mr Editor that as a non-driver you see any form of car prohibition as a positive no matter how it is directed, but if we are going to implement such restrictions and penalties it is best to have them make some kind of sense.
Are we penalising people for car emissions, environmental impact of car ownership/use or just for having a big expensive car?
I realise Mr Editor that as a non-driver you see any form of car prohibition as a positive no matter how it is directed, but if we are going to implement such restrictions and penalties it is best to have them make some kind of sense.
Are we penalising people for car emissions, environmental impact of car ownership/use or just for having a big expensive car?
editor said:
The point is though, you want a system introduced that penalises those ten tonne 4x4s no matter how much they pollute. Furthermore, you seem to have a problem with their "status symbol" image. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all you are going to do, is promote that status symbol even further.
"Hey Mr Jones, not only can I afford the £40,000 this baby costs, but I can also easy afford the parking space!"
It doesn't help anyone (or anything including the planet) but the council coffers.
As I said before before, we're all within our rights to laugh at posing twats in those cars, but I don't have a moral problem with them being used for school runs and what not.
Are you going to have the same complaints when all cars are being run on hydrogen?
It's very dangerous to mix in your class politics with green issues...green issues are way too important. Don't get me wrong, I've a big problem with a top end Range Rover only managing to do 35 mpg - that's a complete fucking waste....but I don't like the way people are going after 4x4 owners because the cars are big/stylish/expensive.
TonkaToy said:
Or get off-street parking... If you can afford to run a sports car then you can probably afford to get parking somewhere else. I'm also guessing families in Richmond who have 4x4s will also have off-street parking.
Oh, and not that I live in Richmond, but mine is also in a garage...
Why do I get the feeling the LibDems have lost the plot in Richmond...? Yep, tax the people who vote for them... That'll make them popular...!
TonkaToy said:
Sums up the entire anti-4x4 brigade...! Your car is big, ugly & scares me... Let ban'em...!
editor
hiraethified
I want those dangerous, selfish, over-engineered, planet-harming, people-killing, polluting ten ton boxes of shit off the city streets.TonkaToy said:
And you may not have a 'moral problem' with selfish parents endangering the lives of others by driving their polluting, van-sized behemoths 500 metres down the road to the local school, but I do.
editor
hiraethified
They'll still represent a huge waste of resources, they're still be over-sized and inappropriate for city streets, they'll still pose an increased danger to fellow road users and pedestrians and they'll still be far more polluting than smaller, more efficient cars.jæd said:
Why doesn't any of that that bother you?
Grow up.jæd said:
Idaho
continuity character
Ok - so is it the size of the vehicles you don't like? It seems that you have a confused bundle of (possibly legitimate) gripes that are used to support any measure that seems to affect SUV drivers, regardless as to whether it affects anyone else and regardless as to whether it is sensible policy.
Similar threads
