Gas guzzling 4x4s and sports cars to pay more for parking

[TonkaToy]

So what's your take on the massively growing trend for driving 4x4s and SUVs around city centres, then?

Oh, and I'm not so sure that "a huge fat chunk of people" disagree with me, either.

People aren't stupid. While advertising works, no car manufacturer can persuade me to buy a £40 k car that I don't find useful. People obviously like the things because they carry their kids around in safety as well a large payload.

Higher prices at the petrol pumps has always fueled demand for energy efficient cars.

 

[lostexpectation]

hmm ouch, not sure about this, is he Renault Espace particularily extravengent a car, compared to other people carriers,I sorta realised with all these new car child seat regs why people have bigger cars these days cos they can't squash four or 5 kids in the back anymore, so it would not be good to encourage peple to get estates or space wagons rather then 4x4 suv's, its those that are unnessecrary and dangerous.

 

[g force]

hmm ouch, not sure about this, is he Renault Espace particularily extravengent a car, compared to other people carriers,I sorta realised with all these new car child seat regs why people have bigger cars these days cos they can't squash four or 5 kids in the back anymore, so it would not be good to encourage peple to get estates or space wagons rather then 4x4 suv's, its those that are unnessecrary and dangerous.

Exactly seems unfair to punish people with large families who's only option is a people carrier. As much as I hate them, if you need to transport 4 kids around, a 1.0 Fiesta or a Smart isn't the answer.

Increasing petrol prices is one way to recuce car usage, but road tax based on car size etc would be better. Kinda like Chris Rock's take on gun crime - you'll never get rid of guns, so make the bullets £5K each and see what happens.

 

[Giles]

It's the simple fact that increased size=increased materials=increased weight=increased pollution.

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.

"We are not getting sold" any type of car in particular. All sizes and shapes of car/van/jeep are freely available, and advertised widely. Some people are choosing to buy 4x4s, not "getting sold" them. If people did not buy em, they would not make em.

Giles..

 

[TeeJay]

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?

The government emission bands only apply to cars produced after 2001. For older cars they still use engine size as previously.

These bands are the same ones used to work out your road tax.

 

[editor]

"We are not getting sold" any type of car in particular. All sizes and shapes of car/van/jeep are freely available, and advertised widely. Some people are choosing to buy 4x4s, not "getting sold" them. If people did not buy em, they would not make em.

So you believe that advertising has no impact on people's lives whatsoever then?

You'd best tell the auto companies to stop wasting their millions, then.

 

[Griff]

For older cars they still use engine size as previously.

These bands are the same ones used to work out your road tax.

I'd say mine would be a confusing one to work out due to engine size alone (1700cc) but with two twin choke carbs chuckin' the petrol in.

Good job it's tax exempt.

 

[cybertect]

Band A, which would be free, would consist of electric cars.

Of course, people who drive electric cars will be the least likely group to park them on the street in the first place, so the council are losing nothing by this.

Try running your extension cable across the pavement to get at an electric point so you can charge it up overnight, even if you can find a parking spot close enough to your house...

 

[Bigdavalad]

Increasing petrol prices is one way to recuce car usage, but road tax based on car size etc would be better. Kinda like Chris Rock's take on gun crime - you'll never get rid of guns, so make the bullets £5K each and see what happens.

Personally I'd rather see Car Tax scrapped altogether and an extra x pence a litre put on petrol (worked out so that a car of 'good' economy driving the average amount of miles a year will end up paying roughly the same - cars with poor economy or heavily used will then pay more and very economical or little driven cars will then save money).

 

[TeeJay]

I'd say mine would be a confusing one to work out due to engine size alone (1700cc) but with two twin choke carbs chuckin' the petrol in.

Good job it's tax exempt.

The current system simple uses engine size for all cars 'first registered' before March 2001, and uses emission rating after this date.

CO2 emissions, measured in grams/km range from:

Toyota Prius Hybrid = 104 g/km (which also does 65.7 mpg) (=> tax = £30.00 per year)
or
Peugeot 107 1.0 litre = 109 g/km (61.3 mpg)

to

Lamborghini Diablo 132 = 520 g/km (13 mpg) ( => tax = £210.00 per year)

You can check out any make and model here: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/search.asp

 

[Cobbles]

What constitutes a high powered sports car?

It's the usual inaccurate hyperbole from the BBC - the proposed threshold is a weeny 3 litres.

How does a 3.2L Jaguar (e.g. Government minister spec.) emit more pollution than a Prius when they're stationary?

It's just another lump of opportunist financing dressed up with holier than thou green bollocks.

 

[Cobbles]

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.

Fine - but in relation to item 1, we already have differential pricing for fuel efficiency based on the criminal level of UK fuel tax (with VAT slapped on top of that).

I agree with getting polluting vehicles off the road, particularly those with large inefficient particulate spewing diesel engines. Oops - that'd take half the UK's Bus/lorry transport off the road - still, that'd reduce congestion at a stroke as well as improving air quality.

 

[Cobbles]

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).

Yes, there shouldn't be anything larger on the roads than a carriage and 4.

If you feel intimidated by big bad nasty SUV's, I presume that you cower in abject terror every time you approach a bendy bus........

 

[Idaho]

Tax should be much higher on mineral petrol and pertol diesel fuel. Make biodiesel cheaper, make ethanol cheaper, make LPG cheaper.

My car is relatively high polluting. It's a big 2.2 ltr turbo diesel engine. I'd think it was fair enough to congestion charge it £5 for going into town at peak times, fair to charge me £200 a year on parking tax and maybe add another 10p a litre on the fuel.

The only caveat being that the government would have to spend that money well rather than just piss it away.

 

[editor]

Oops - that'd take half the UK's Bus/lorry transport off the road - still, that'd reduce congestion at a stroke as well as improving air quality.

No it wouldn't. It would just drive even more cars on to the roads and leave millions without any means of transportation.

 

[editor]

If you feel intimidated by big bad nasty SUV's, I presume that you cower in abject terror every time you approach a bendy bus........

Does that negate her point, then?

 

[Idaho]

No it wouldn't. It would just drive even more cars on to the roads and leave millions without any means of transportation.

I think this betrays your London-centricity on the issue. In London, the poor, the practical and the sensible all take public transport. Driving and owning a car is pointless.

Outside London the only people who take public transport are those lucky enough to live on the few bus or train routes and the poor, the practical and the sensible find themselves needing a car to get to work, go to the shops, get the kids to school, etc.

 

[Giles]

So you believe that advertising has no impact on people's lives whatsoever then?

You'd best tell the auto companies to stop wasting their millions, then.

I'm not saying it has no influence - just that you made it sound as if these vehicles were somehow being foisted on an unwilling public. They are not.

Giles..

 

[trashpony]

I think this betrays your London-centricity on the issue. In London, the poor, the practical and the sensible all take public transport. Driving and owning a car is pointless.

Outside London the only people who take public transport are those lucky enough to live on the few bus or train routes and the poor, the practical and the sensible find themselves needing a car to get to work, go to the shops, get the kids to school, etc.

Fuck's sake - this is a proposal for Richmond - which is in LONDON. It's not going to affect you rural bunnies so I don't see why you're getting your knickers in such a twist about it

 

[editor]

I'm not saying it has no influence - just that you made it sound as if these vehicles were somehow being foisted on an unwilling public.

No, I didn't.

 

[mattie]

Fuck's sake - this is a proposal for Richmond - which is in LONDON. It's not going to affect you rural bunnies so I don't see why you're getting your knickers in such a twist about it

From Beeb website:

'The Local Government Association's environment board chairman Paul Bettison said: "Local authorities up and down the country will be watching these proposals in Richmond with great interest."'

I think they will as well. So, how it goes in Richmond could indicate how it goes elsewhere in the country.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

And a brand new 1 litre car will have better emissions that a a brand new 3 litre sports car.

however a brand new 3 litre sports car will knock spots of in terms of fuel economy a 884 cc side valve morris minor... summit which if it wasn't for the tax exempt status of the car anyways would mean it qaulifies for a CC reduction and also a road fund reduction under the current suppossed eco regulations... this really is simplistic thinking by people with know real knowledge about engineering, manufacture or for that matter engine technology...

does this take into account that most desiel engines which use common rail cleaner brun technology are larger capacity engines? type of size of vechile? primary purpose of vechile? it's peak usuage and mean usage? it's idelling speed and emmsions output compared to it's city cycle ...

has any of this been mentioned by any one least of all the car bashing brigade... would they even know where to start...

i love people who champion biodiesel ignoring the carbon negative effect of it's import into this country, and the carbon negative effect in general of it's production.....

of those who champion elelctric cars with out consdiering the method of production of the electricity to power them....

or the ethanol champions who haven't consdiered the consiquence of runnign ethanl on today's modern aliminum engines... (significant wear with out repeated rising with high end detergents which place phosophorious back into the water system nice... very eco freindly)

indeed even the most and still experimental hydrogen powered engines have the draw back fo h2o as a by product which will in time lead to a greater level of humididty and therefore an increase ambient tempriture ...

but hey let's not let any of this get in the way of the car bashing eh

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

It's the simple fact that increased size=increased materials=increased weight=increased pollution.

dr fox it's not based on any evidence but it is scientific fact... right ...

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.

opinion/conjecture not fact...

We should be working towards less cars in the cities and encouraging people to use more environmentally friendly vehicles.

Ideal; but powered by what and built from what?

Instead we're getting sold wasteful, over-engineered slabs of metal.

opinion conjecture not fact...

not a very conclusive argument presented thus far.. tbh....

 

[Giles]

No, I didn't.

Well, it sounded kind of like that to me....

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.

We'll have to agree to differ on that, then.

Giles..

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

So you don't think that the charges will discourage people from buying new 4x4s then? I do.

nope it'll add to the stuatus symbol for the few who buy them for this reason which are in the minority (althoguht most likely the majority with in london; it's a very london centric viewpoint of 4x4's btw...)

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.

no your argument is flawed as is highlighted with the example of the morris minor with a tiny engine and a larger engined sports car... you aren't applying any engineering prinipal to this merely your own opinion which is inaccurate and flawed on this matter, mainly it would appear it's coloured by your dislike of 4x4's and car in general...

I'm not saying that this new parking charge is the answer, but it's definitely a step in the right direction, IMO.

i'm afriad you opinion isn't very considered then....

it's very reactionary and knee jerk and doesn't really consdier the manner in which people work or the fact that it will as usual penalise those who are least capable of affording puntitive taxations...

 

[editor]

i'm afriad you opinion isn't very considered then....

Yes it is, actually.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Mmmm, assumption masquerading as knowledge. How surprising.
Richmond isn't quite as "swish" as you appear to think, and if you knew the area (which you don't, what with you being a south coast boy by way of inner city south London) you'd have cottoned to the fact that Richmond is a "rat run" between London and Surrey, and that having vehicles with large "footprints" parked in residential streets means congestion whenever commuters pass through en masse, so attempting to convice people, via local taxation, to have narrower cars probably made sense to the burghers of Richmond.

Whether it works is another matter entirely.

 

[editor]

opinion/conjecture not fact...

Yes, that's why I started with the words, "I also think..."



Oh, and 4x4s are most certainly over-engineered for driving around city streets, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Yes it is, actually.

ok run with this flight of fancy if you will then ...

a parked car, that is a car which is not in useage creates exactly what level of polution assuming it has no leaks for say oil petrol or water then?

ergo what level of poultion reduction is there in charging said vechile more to remain stationary?

your considered opinion if you please...

becuase you have considered that the prevention of pollution aspect is total nonsense when applied to any engine which is parked and not running right... unless you are running into the massively esoteric concepts of power used and resources and over all pollutution which i'm afriad would show your arguement to be buckling under it's own failings, it's inconsidered weakness and it's generaly poor implementation...

more over why not address the engine size issue as it beign an inadiquate method of ecological tollerence in terms of output...

 

[editor]

ok run with this flight of fancy if you will then ...

a parked car, that is a car which is not in useage creates exactly what level of polution assuming it has no leaks for say oil petrol or water then?

ergo what level of poultion reduction is there in charging said vechile more to remain stationary?

your considered opinion if you please...

Sorry, but I can't be arsed to entertain this ridiculous non-starter of an 'argument.'

Shiny 4x4s aren't purchased to stand stationary on the streets and you seem incapable of understanding that their over-sized and over-engineered construction means that they already represent a needless waste of resources.