I think a better way would be to make all the streets pay and display - then we would have somewhere to park when we visit Kew and they would have the hassle of not being able to park near their homes!
After all we don't have any entitlement to park outside our houses do we!
|
|
|
In general terms the Lib Dems are talking of a national increase in road tax, in order to pay for income tax cuts.
As the owners of the larger cars that will be hit by increased road tax are likely to be paying more income tax in the first place - that's all right then.
|
|
|
|
define "gas guzzler". Is it related to the size of the vehicle, its fuel consumption, how many driven wheels it has, its emissions or just on whether or nto the Sun likes it ?
|
another tax for the law-abiding to pay, and for others to ignore.
It will definitely be worth concreting your front garden in Richmond.
I guess the neighbouring boroughs have resident only schemes to stop the Richmond crowd parking on their streets ?
One of my local (Farnham) car parks has a vehicle weight limit - never, ever seen it enforced. I can't see how they will enforce this - there will be so many loopholes.
That's not to say we shouldn't pay heavily for driving a vehicle that's massively over-specified for the job, but this piecemeal legislation is just so silly.
|
pay heavily for driving a vehicle that's massively over-specified for the job
Out of interest what do you drive, is that specified exactly for just what you need, how do you feel about being taxed for anything extra - aircon, expensive stero, leather seats, slightly bigger than a Nova etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
define "gas guzzler". Is it related to the size of the vehicle, its fuel consumption, how many driven wheels it has, its emissions or just on whether or nto the Sun likes it ?
In general terms, it is difficult to see why anyone needs a car above 3 litres in capacity these days, apart from some farmers or tradesmen. So this would be my starting point for the definition of a gas guzzler.
I know that some of the so-called green fraternity would have us driving 1.0 litre micro-cars but this is unreasonable as they are not fit for purpose in many instances. I think people have become very hung up on the 4X4 topic, but there are polenty of other large-engined cars apart from 4X4's to worry about.
I would welcome anyone to explain to me why they need a 3 litre plus vehicle for normal driving ?
|
>>I would welcome anyone to explain to me why they need a 3 litre plus vehicle for normal driving ?<<
Because people want to...and can. With the greatest of respect (and I'm not having a go at you here), what business is it of yours what other people drive or why they need to?
|
>>what business is it of yours what other people drive or why they need to?
Because that is an attitude which is becoming increasingly prevalent in the UK and positively dominant in the Backroom.
|
|
|
|
I have a three litre car - as was the previous one.
I like it. And that is sufficient, in my view. You are welcome to your view too of course.
|
|
|
>>I would welcome anyone to explain to me why they need a 3 litre plus vehicle for normal driving
Because I want one.
What do you drive and why do you *NEED* it ?
What happens if we compare a 3.5 litre vehicle with a 2.5 litre vehicle where the consumption on the larger engine is better ?
|
|
|
I have to disagree with that. Where do you draw the line? Put a 1.0 or 1.2 in any car, it will hit 70mph, so why need anything else?
If they really want to cut carbon emissions then motoring isn't the biggest culprit by far. I have a 3.2 litre car but dont travel by air much (once in the last 4 years). I therefore have contributed far less to carbon emissions from transport than someone who has say a 1litre car and travels by plane more.
|
|
That is I disagree with Roly93!
|
|
|
|
I think we've lost the plot here a bit, I thought we were supposed to be thinking of 'reasonable' ways of reducing pollution, if you are not then thats of course your right. I too don't like being told what to do, but we have to reach a position of compromise for the environments sake I think, otherwise we will end up being told what to do to a much greater degree.
|
|
I see your point Roly93, but what you think is reasonable someone else won't. I personally don't like flying, so think it should be taxed to the hilt to stop unneccesary travel. Many will think this is unreasonable.
|
|
|
>>but we have to reach a position of compromise for the environments sake<<
Do we though? The planet is a pretty big place. It's had ice ages before. Meteors hit it before. And it will still be here millions of years after we die. To think that we could save the planet is a little naive. That doesn't mean to say I disagree with some sort of energy conservation but me getting a Fiesta instead of a Mondeo isn't going to solve anything.
A blinkered view? Probably. But if we carry on getting rid of fun things because they're dangeous/environmentally unfriendly etc...then what's the point in having a planet to live on?
|
|
|
|
Another effect of heavy charging for parking permits is that people may think twice about how many cars they keep. Two cars per household seems normal these days. How many do you need?!?
|
>>How many do you need?!?<<
We need three. And believe me, we wouldn't have them if we didn't need them. Not while Mum's in charge.
|
|
|
|
"I thought we were supposed to be thinking of 'reasonable' ways of reducing pollution"
Are we? Not on my agenda. Not a seminal objective in my life.
|
|
|
I think this is an interesting debate.
One question - why is it that Richmond believe they have a specific emissions problem? If there was a view (which I know some hold) that said gas guzzlers are bad for the environment, then that is something that should be dealt with on a national level. I am not clear why it is anything to do with Richmond council.
I can understand that they may have to operate a system for billing cars to park on some roads - surely a fair way to deal with this is by virtue of the length of the car. You pay per cm of car you have, and incentivise smaller cars that way.
It appears a mis-directed tax, and in my view, strays outside of the remit of the council. I am sure that they have a mandate to 'imrpove the environment of Richmond' or the like, but I am sure there are more effective ways they could do that, and still control parking on the streets / raise money.
Are they going to tax the aeroplanes that fly over Richmond - they must be quite a problem.....
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
"I would welcome anyone to explain to me why they need a 3 litre plus vehicle for normal driving ?"
I wanted it. I can afford it. I don't mug people or deal drugs to pay for it. I like it. I enjoy the power and I like the sound it makes. It comes with heated leather seats and a fantastic stereo. It makes me feel good about myself. I spend a lot of time in it, I wanted the best for my budget. It's mine, and my choice. It's fully paid for. It's completely legal, taxed and insured. I pay for the petrol and the tax on the petrol.
It's "massively overspecced" in that it could carry five adults and their luggage while towing a caravan across Europe all week long sure but I use it for work/Tescos/pleasure. I'd like to hear from anyone on this forum who drives something designed for minimum purpose i.e. a one-seated, 250cc three-wheeled wooden chair with a steering wheel cos unless you do, I don't owe you an explanation and you've no right to criticse me.
|
|
We should all rejoice that we live in a free country and can go out and choose what (legal) things we want to buy. Many in the world are not so lucky.
|
We do not live in a free-a-country as you think. There are consequences for choices that we make. For the Richmond residents this means more 'tax'. Public transport in Richmond is good. Out in the sticks, fine, but in London do you really need a car.
I lived in London for eight years without a car and managed quite happily.
|
"I lived in London for eight years without a car and managed quite happily"
But you are Red Baron and I'm Big Bad Dave
My needs are different from yours and our choices reflect that. I lived in London for 15 years and only for the first year I didn't have a car. Life was much easier for me with one.
|
|
|
>>We do not live in a free-a-country as you think
But certainly freer than RedBaron wishes.
|
|
|
There are consequences for choices that we make. For the Richmond residents this means more 'tax'. Public transport in Richmond is good. Out in the sticks, fine, but in London do you really need a car.
And that is precisely why gas guzzlers should have DISCOUNT on parking. To encourage them to park and use public transport. When parked, they don't polute and don't emit. Instead, the idiots propose you get free parking permit if you agree to leave your electric car at home. But you have to believe its actually about environment.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
|
|
|
|
">'d like to hear from anyone on this forum who drives something designed for minimum purpose i.e. a one-seated, 250cc three-wheeled wooden chair with a steering wheel cos unless you do, I don't owe you an explanation and you've no right to criticse me.<"
I use a pushbike, does that count?
|
>>I use a pushbike, does that count?
Two pedals ?
|
|
|
|
The opposing BBC article to the one above is here: "Drivers are a Soft Target": news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6083290.stm
The AA Motoring Trust said it feared the plan to penalise the owners of gas-guzzling vehicles would not target the right drivers.
Spokesman Paul Watters said: "To use them to encourage some sort of shift in car ownership type is probably going a bit too far.
"Residents who rarely use their vehicles would be hit because of what their car is, not what it does.
"Some people only use their cars at weekends so they are actually being penalised for what they own and not how they use it."
|
|
|
|
|
