Gas guzzling 4x4s and sports cars to pay more for parking
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Griff 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?
So your second car is a classic car? Aren’t most of these already exempt from VED as they were introduced before VED was established? For the same logic I assume, but would like to know, that as this vehicle will not have an emissions rating on its vehicle registration the band it should fall in is unknown so as a result it will be in a catch all band. Can anyone set me straight on this?
It might even be that those lucky enough to be able to enjoy a classic car might be penalised by this system as this car would not do many miles. However this is only a small minority, and I expect many classic cars will be kept in garages. For this reason I do not think it should be an obstacle to this scheme.
I do understand the pleasure people get from cars. I also understand that as a society we must work towards reducing our CO2 emissions and this is a step in the right direction.
Griff
Feeding the foxes
BigPhil said:
You're right, it does count as a classic car and is also tax exempt and kept in a garage.
As far as I know, and I could be wrong, if it's that old the only emmission on an MoT should be visable smoke for it to fail. Having said that my old Beetle (1973) had the emissions tested on the last MoT it had before it was sold in September.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
I'm with tonkatoy on this. If this is a green tax (and that's how it's being promoted, right?) then it's badly invented. The pollution comes from burning fossil fuels, in direct proportion to the amount consumed. Petrol costs a standard amount per unit, so if you want to reduce the amount of petrol being burnt, you make it more expensive. The problem is petrol, not the cars it's being burnt in.
Taxes like this one do not address the root of the problem, and will not have any real effect on CO2 emissions. I hate 4x4's as much as the next guy, but this tax will not reduce how much they are driven. It will prevent people who cannot afford the tax from buying a new one, but f you have one already , it will not change your driving patterns one bit.
Taxes like this one do not address the root of the problem, and will not have any real effect on CO2 emissions. I hate 4x4's as much as the next guy, but this tax will not reduce how much they are driven. It will prevent people who cannot afford the tax from buying a new one, but f you have one already , it will not change your driving patterns one bit.
editor
hiraethified
It's the simple fact that increased size=increased materials=increased weight=increased pollution.Idaho said:
I also think that SUVs are massively oversized for Britain's city streets as well as being provably more dangerous to other road users and pedestrians.
We should be working towards less cars in the cities and encouraging people to use more environmentally friendly vehicles. Instead we're getting sold wasteful, over-engineered slabs of metal.
editor
hiraethified
So you don't think that the charges will discourage people from buying new 4x4s then? I do.Crispy said:
And your argument is flawed. People in 4x4s will create more pollution than someone making the same journey in a smaller car, so any tax that makes people think twice before buying one will eventually have a positive effect on reducing petrol consumption.
I'm not saying that this new parking charge is the answer, but it's definitely a step in the right direction, IMO.
editor
hiraethified
It's got to start somewhere fella, little by little.Crispy said:
After all, we're up against the $$$bn auto industry that's selling these fucking behemoths, backed by the $$$bn petrol industry.
It still strikes me as the sort of madness that people in the future will look back on with utter amazement.
Global scientists agree that global warming is one of the biggest threats to the planet, so the automobile industry responds by creating new, bigger, heavier cars that make the problem worse.
Idaho
continuity character
It strikes me that you are starting with high profile but essentially meaningless targets. Coal powered power stations have an impact many million times greater than SUVs. Why waste effort and attention on such a campaign - unless of course the point isn't pollution limitation, but cultural distaste.editor said:
girasol
Addicted to handstands!
How about the little cars being charged less? That would be and would encourage people to get smaller, city cars.
(smaller sized engines, under 1000cc already pay less for parking permits, by the way, but although I'm quite happy having a car which is under that limit, that can be too small, my car struggles to move if there are more than 2 people in it)
and would encourage people to get smaller, city cars.(smaller sized engines, under 1000cc already pay less for parking permits, by the way, but although I'm quite happy having a car which is under that limit, that can be too small, my car struggles to move if there are more than 2 people in it)
editor
hiraethified
I'm actually talking about new cars and have given a long list of my objections that go beyond just their pollution. I thought that was obvious.Idaho said:
I've also explained that I don't believe that this parking charge is the perfect solution, but a small step in the right direction.
But what's your idea for reducing polliution? Or do you think that 4x4s are a great idea and the more people that drive them around town the better?
editor
hiraethified
SUVs and 4x4s are one of the fastest growing sectors in the motor trade. And exactly where on earth have I stated that they're the only target for environmentalists and things like coal powered power stations should be ignored?Idaho said:
But what's your take on 4x4s? Are you saying that because they're not as bad as coal powered power stations, no steps should be made to discourage them?
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Idaho said:
Yes production of energny is important. So is reducing consumption.
10 % of emmisions are from private vehciles
25 % from homes
We need to look at reducing all emmisions. That includes the 10% which comes from our vehicles.
Only about 3% comes from flying. Should we ignore it for that reason? I don't think so.
trashpony
Hag
Iemanja said:How about the little cars being charged less? That would be
(smaller sized engines, under 1000cc already pay less for parking permits, by the way, but although I'm quite happy having a car which is under that limit, that can be too small, my car struggles to move if there are more than 2 people in it)
Afaik that's what they're proposing - little cars won't have to pay for resident parking a year.
I think it's a great idea - so many people in London have huge cars for no reason
girasol
Addicted to handstands!
trashpony said:
That would be ideal, I think.
My main gripe with big cars is their SIZE, London has very narrow roads, and I feel bullied by the monsters. Although it's always funny when all the big cars get roadblocked outside my son's school in the morning
(we don't drive to school).This also applies to 'status' cars, why are people who drive Mercedes such wankers? Long cars should pay more too, they take up more space...
I also had a go at a woman driving a sports car yesterday who decided to overtake me because I dared to drive at the speed limit in a urban area!!
Who would have thought of that, hey? Oh, yes, we were also waiting for the truck in front of us to do a u-turn, just before that.When I caught up with her 30 seconds later at the traffic lights, my son and I were * really * laughing at her. She didn't know where to look.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
editor said:
Al Gore spoke about that in his film. He made the point that its quite ironic that due to the US auto industry fighting any emmisions targets / laws it has resulted in their vehicles not being suitable for export to other markets with higher standards.
It seems their obsession with wanting to polute is killing the potential for their export market!
Idaho
continuity character
editor said:SUVs and 4x4s are one of the fastest growing sectors in the motor trade. And exactly where on earth have I stated that they're the only target for environmentalists and things like coal powered power stations should be ignored?
But what's your take on 4x4s? Are you saying that because they're not as bad as coal powered power stations, no steps should be made to discourage them?
If our intention is to limit emissions then we should do two things. Firstly increase the cost of petrol. Secondly we should test vehicles for emissions and either take polluting ones off the road or fine them. If we did this, it would not much affect a wealthy owner of a brand new SUV.
I think we should extend congestion charging, there should be a street parking fee payable annually and that money should be spent on improving the public transport network in the area.
Living in London it seems that cars are just status symbols - I too lived in London for many years and had not learnt to drive. However when you get out of London the options for transport are very limited.
I have a big car - a people carrier. It is pretty heavy on fuel. It doesn't do any school runs or commuter runs and does 99% of it's journeys out of peak times. It also has a minimum of 5 passengers for 90% of it's mileage and does less than average total mileage every year - perhaps 8,000 miles. I am happy to pay higher costs on fuel. I would pay more car tax. I would pay an extra local parking tax. I would pretty much have to pay as life would be a lot harder and a lot less fun without the car.
Baboonking
Registered Baboon
quite a few builders use 4x4 type vehicles, especailly double cab pickups, the advantage is you can use them for both work and home. It saves having 2 cars. Also stops the nieghbours complaining about that terrible white van ruining the view.
editor said:
Oh but I do. It doesn't take a genious to work out that someone who can afford a home in Richmond and a a top of the range Range Rover with all the costs that come with it, with laugh in the face of a council parking space bill.
If I don't know for sure it won't affect the top end, I don't know what info you have that makes you so sure that it will.
Similar threads
