I'm no fan of Ken, I find the man an opinionated ignoramus, and I'm generally against the principal of road charging given how heavily taxed motoring is in this country in relation to road spending....
But....
Giving incentives such as 100% concessions to Band A and B cars is kinda like the changes to the VED bands a few years ago. Bands A and B were slashed vastly in the hope that when people did come to change their cars, they might, just might, be swayed towards buying more efficient, less polluting models to benefit from the cheaper tax.
In the same way, anyone who genuinely needs to drive into central London now has an incentive to consider carefully what kind of car they choose for the job. Honestly, why would you need something like a six cylinder Beemer or a Cayenne - performance is pretty much irrelevant by and large in the constant jams and 30mph zones that make up the CC zone. Central London is a great leveller of performance statistics!
I'm no greeny, but there's an element of responsibility here. You might argue about the extent of both, but there's no denying that oil IS a finite thing, and cars DO pollute. If this encourages folk to use less of the former and produce less of the latter, is that a bad thing?
If I had much call to drive into the CC zone, what would I do? As far as I can see, the best way to get back at Ken is to actually chop in my car for something in Band B - and pay him absolutely nothing! Hit him where it'll hurt most!
I do have some sympathy for larger families, but again, if they are regularly in the CC zone, there are plenty of diesel people carriers out there that fall into the lower bands.
Folk who buy 50 grand Porsches and the like then grouch about the 25 quid they knew it would cost them to drive into London every day are, to me anyways, akin to the folk who earn millions then complain if anyone even suggests they pay the same percentage of tax on their earnings as mere minions like me! Sure, it's your choice, but it still is - you just have to be prepared to take some responsibility for that choice.
Another benefit, of course, is that car manufacturers are incentivised into producing less polluting models - when Band B VED was first slashed to £35 a year, almost all the cars in that grouping were superminis and city cars. Now you can choose a Mini Cooper, BMW 1 series and a host of Focus-sized cars.
Of course, this is all fine and dandy, but being politicians, I can see a couple of years down the line when we've all bought Band B cars, the goalposts are shifted drastically and we all have to start over again!
|
>If I had much call to drive into the CC zone what would I do? As far as I can see the best way to get back at Ken is to actually chop in my car for something in Band B - and pay him absolutely nothing! Hit him where it'll hurt most!
Once there's a lot of people driving CC exempt vehicles Ken will suddenly un-exempt them.
He's already gone back on his promise to except some vehicles. The CC charge is about revenue first and foremost. If the revenue drops, they'll simply change the rules again to grab more.
It's the same for road pricing in general. The reason the government is so keen on it is because they don't have an easy way to tax alternative fuelled cars, such as electric cars that can charge off the mains. Road pricing allows them to tax any vehicle, regardless of how it moves.
|
"So the hundreds of thousands driving cars emitting less than 121g/km have been disadvantaged by the few thousand driving Porsches"
If there were hundreds of thousands then that may be the case.
The truth is most Londoners cant afford a car emitting less than 121 grm/km. In fact they could more readily afford an old Porsche.
So the average CC zone user will likely support Porsche fighting to ensure that there 180gm/km five year old £5k family hatch is affordable.
Otherwise HJ, you are right a Porsche victory before May might backfire (sic) though I cant see a judicial review being done and dusted by then.
|
|
|
|
Honestly why would you need something like a six cylinder Beemer
Becuase they are excellent cars, are smooth to drive and wonderful places to be in. It's the same reason why some people chose not to use the bus, or chose to have certain furnishings in their house. My 6 cylinder Beemer uses barely any more fuel around town than my Ken-friendly 2 litre Mondeo did. But it goes about town in a far nicer, more refined way.
It's NOT about £50k car owners moaning about £25 a day at all. For many people the yearly charge to drive in the zone might even be the same as the total value of their car!
|
|
There's a simple solution. Most Londoners want less pollution. Breathing this chemical soup is unpleasant. So, go along with it, and when in Town use something that doesn't spew out such a lot of filth.
|
There's a simple solution. Most Londoners want less pollution. Breathing this chemical soup is unpleasant. So go along with it and when in Town use something that doesn't spew out such a lot of filth.
So you are advocating people become owners of two cars when in reality, one was usually sufficient? That will be good for parking and congestion!
|
So you are advocating people become owners of two cars
Your words. Not mine.
That will be good for parking and congestion!
Even should you plan be widely taken up, I cannot see people driving two cars at once.
|
>> So you are advocating people become owners of two cars Your words. Not mine.
You implied it by suggesting that when in town, people use something which pollutes less.
>> That will be good for parking and congestion! Even should you plan be widely taken up I cannot see people driving two cars at once.
And what happens to the other car when its not being driven? Does it fold into a convenient box for storage under the kitchen sink?
|
Is it just me or do the posts supporting this heinous hike make your blood boil?
Do people not get it?
If you own a 'Gas Guzzler' (stupid term, but i guess the plebs can understand it) you therefore use more petrol/diesel, and therefore you pay more.
Now if i'm not mistaken petrol/diesel is taxed at roughly 70% so those who use there cars more or whose cars pollute more pay more.
Can you get any fairer than that or is that too simple?
Why use the congestion charge as a tool for pollution, where's the link?
Oh silly me, the link's Ken, (I hate Cars)
|
>>>> So Porsche are at the forefront of eco-friendly motoring technology?
>>>>They most certainly are.
All things are relative!!!!
|
Why would you need something like a six cylinder Beemer
>
> Becuase they are excellent cars, are smooth to drive and wonderful places to be in.
I don't doubt it, but are you really telling us that it's such a hardship for you to have to drive into London in a mere 2.0 Mondeo? There's a difference between needs and wants.
We'd all like to drive around in big smooth German cars, but are they the right tool for commuting in a big city? I find it hard to believe that nothing less than a Band G car will meet your needs in terms of comfort and refinement!
Fair enough if you feel hard done by that you only pootle a few miles at a time, but even that few miles could have been done in a car emitting half the pollutants and consuming half the fuel.
If anoyone is stung by the hike in the CC for Band G cars to the extent that they are experiencing genuine financial troubles, then I'd suggest they are perhaps driving the wrong car for them.
Yes, you some people choose not to take the bus, but they must expect to pay a bit more for that choice - I'm not saying that's right, but it's how it is. Similarly, if you know the charge is in place yet insist that you couldn't possibly drive in with anything other than a Band G car, then I'll find it hard to sympathise with the extra costs incurred.
Again, I'll reiterate that I'm generally against congestion charging, but if we must have it, I don't see what's unfair about charging more for larger, dirtier cars.
My main beef with road and fuel tax, and congestion charging, is that it rarely leads to any visible improvement in public transport. Trains and buses don't get any less crowded or reliable, and usually hike their fares above inflation. If all motoring taxes were ringfenced for public transport improvements, and by that I don't mean to line the pockets of transport company shareholders, then I'd have no problem with them as they are now.
|
I don't doubt it but are you really telling us that it's such a hardship for you to have to drive into London in a mere 2.0 Mondeo? There's a difference between needs and wants.
Most people only own a single car each. It's not a hardship to drive into London in a 2 litre Mondeo. It is an impossibility if you do not own one.
We'd all like to drive around in big smooth German cars but are they the right tool for commuting in a big city? I find it hard to believe that nothing less than a Band G car will meet your needs in terms of comfort and refinement!
It is the ideal tool for pottering around a city - by not coverng many miles, the usual massive running costs are lessened. It costs not much more to fuel than a 'proper' citycar.
Fair enough if you feel hard done by that you only pootle a few miles at a time but even that few miles could have been done in a car emitting half the pollutants and consuming half the fuel.
Which would have been a compromised car with lower levels of performance on the open road and a lesser long distance ability.
If anoyone is stung by the hike in the CC for Band G cars to the extent that they are experiencing genuine financial troubles then I'd suggest they >> are perhaps driving the wrong car for them.
Band G is not the issue. The issue is Band F cars, which are having this charge applied retrospectively. The £25 a day charge did not exist when many people bought a car. Now they are suddenly forced to sell their car or pay £6000 a year to continue to use it.
How can you justify this? Would you experience no financial issues if you suddenly had to pay £6k a year?
Similarly if you know the charge is in place yet insist that you couldn't possibly drive in with anything other than a Band G car then I'll find it hard to sympathise with the extra costs incurred.
See above - its Band F over 225g/km as well. You could quite easily have bought a used car in 2004 and still be driving it and now suddenly find yourself being clobbered for £6000 a year. If it only affected future choice then fair enough, but it isn't, is it?
Most people chose their car before this charge was even dreamt up. Now they must sell their cars - and how many people in London are going to jump at the selection of used 225g/km c02 cars now for sale?
|
|
Is it just me or do the posts supporting this heinous hike make your blood boil?
It's not me, so it could be you!
If you own a 'Gas Guzzler' (stupid term but i guess the plebs can understand it) you therefore use more petrol/diesel and therefore you pay more.
Yes. However, the intent of this charge seems to be to discourage the more-polluting vehicles from being driven in central London. Judging by the noise, it is likely to succeed. I hope so! Why should we have to put up with absolutely terrible air quality?
Can you get any fairer than that or is that too simple?
"It's not fair". Correct - however, it is not fair to have to breath in filth, either.
Why use the congestion charge as a tool for pollution where's the link?
Substitute fewer cars, and/or less polluting ones, and you have, quite obviously, got the link.
Oh silly me the link's Ken (I hate Cars)
But many will be allowed in at a much smaller charge. Some vehicles, for instance motorbikes, which are a Very Good Thing, are exempt.
|
"It's not fair". Correct - however it is not fair to have to breath in filth either.
Once again FT I have to disagree with one of your remarks, although you yourself may well be a fine fellow.
It isn't fair to have to breathe in filth if you compare your lot to that of people who live in places where the air is relatively clean (wherever they may be, hard to tell for sure). However the inhabitants of this town, and to some extent of this country, are all in the same boat from that point of view.
And a lot of places where the air is clean have other disadvantages. What you lose on the roundabouts you gain on the swings, innit?
A late Hungarian friend of mine, raised under communism although a very emancipated individual, loathed the concept of 'fairness' (he never uttered the word without the quote marks being obvious) which he saw as a snivelling piece of reactionary British-style ideology. I don't. But I see what he meant.
|
America chooses between Obama, Clinton or McCain
London has Ken or Boris
Oh dear
|
i'm sat in an outer London suburb with a 9 yr old 3 litre Jag and a 3 yr old 2 litre diesel Jag estate wondering when (rather than if) Red Ken is going to have a pop at me. I've seen the LEZ signs everywhere and i'm not stupid, because they come with sophisticated cameras. Today's polluting lorry is tomorrows polluting car.
Why should i be worried that my 9 yr old 'pride and joy' might have to be sold off or garaged outside Greater London because 6 grand a year is too much for my budget to wear. I only do 4,500 a year in it for goodness sake...leave me alone.
Why should I have to consider buying something truly dreadful to drive around in, just because of Red Ken's politics.
He won't win. The worst case scenario will be somthing dreadful sat in the driveway for the commute and local running around, something equally dreadful for 'er indoors' as she needs one as well....and then i'll hire something decent for long journeys.. because i point blank refuse to drive a crappy little city car on a long journey, plus the fact how on earth do you fit a married couple, baby, suitcases etc and two dogs in a Band B car?
how many other towns or cities in this once pleasant country are going to go the same way?
Edited by Westpig on 20/02/2008 at 22:36
|
|
I think it's a case of the lunatics taking over the asylum. Why are we letting them do this? How much CO2 does the aircraft spew out coming in over london and what band are they in?
|
i'm sat in an outer London suburb (...)
Why should I have to consider buying something truly dreadful to drive around in just because of Red Ken's politics.
You don't. No-one does. Just avoid taking the more polluting cars into central London, or pay the fee. Simple. Perhaps try a trip to Bristol, the Midlands, or the North for a change.
how many other towns or cities in this once pleasant country
Once green and pleasant, you are right. Now, at least in London, a slough of despond and pollution, to which a big contributor is the "gas" guzzler.
BTW, if you think all cars which are eligible for a lower charge are "truly dreadful", then I put it to you that you've an extremely blinkered approach.
|
You don't. No-one does. Just avoid taking the more polluting cars into central London or pay the fee. Simple.
Not that simple if you only own one car and thus dont have a choice of taking another.
|
>>Once green and pleasant, you are right. Now, at least in London, a slough of despond and pollution, to which a big contributor is the "gas" guzzler.
How do you work out when the goverments own figures say that most pollution comes from Buses, taxis & HGVs. Buses & Taxis that whilst being much greater producers of CO2 which ISN'T a pollutant do not pay congestion charge. Cars are virtually insignificant!
And this is the thin end of the wedge, originally the city of london, then the west of London, then the LEZ which is just inside the M25 & Ken has said that he'll extend it to the M25 if re-elected.
How close does it have to get to your cozy little world before you suddenly wake up & smell the coffee?
Oh the other thing to remember is that all of this is Ken on his own, the Govement has stood on the sidelines & watched Ken make up his own rules which in most areas contravene goverment policy!
|
Obama Clinton or McCain
Ken or Boris
The only one out of those five who I know sort of likes cars is Boris, but I don't think he's a real enthusiast, just someone who likes cars enough to do a bit of handed-over-on-a-plate and well-paid car hacking, taking bread out of the mouths of better qualified people's nippers, the so-and-so. But I don't think he's bad, considering.
Of course any of the Americans might have spent a year or two accelerating 11,000 hp slingshot specials down short bits of runway, if that was their idea of fun (it certainly isn't mine, or wouldn't be for long).
But why list the names of these carphounds or semi-carphounds/carphoundettes? Are you trying to depress us nick?
And although London is mighty, surely the US of A is on another scale altogether? Do they all belong in the same list, I mean?
|
Transition is always going to be hard on some - we all know recycling our household waste is for the greater good, but can I persuade my mother to stop just chucking everything into her general waste wheelie bin....?
The thing is, things like cutting Band B VED to £35 a year and exempting them from the congestion charge are providing an impetus to change. As I've mentioned, look at the variety of Band B cars now compared to when the VED changes were first announced.
Let's take BMW as an example, as they've already been mentioned. A slightly older 530i may well produce enough CO2 to bump it into the demon £25 CC category, but the new 530i? That produces, if I'm not mistaken, a mere 180g/km or thereabouts of CO2. In fact, the only models in the current 5 series line-up which would now fall into the higher category are the 540i and the M5.
And what about the X5? Possibly in response to this very change in the CC, BMW tweaked it to produce a few g/km less, just enough to put it into the £8 category. Small step, maybe, but a step in the right direction.
Without governments and the like providing a financial incentive to manufacturers to do this, would BMW have embarked upon something like their Efficient Dynamics drive to reduce CO2 and increase fuel economy? Even the most sceptical amongst us (and by jingo, there are some sceptical types around on here!) have to admit that their achievements in this area have been nothing short of impressive - faced with legislation around the world that threatens their car market, they've actually gone and done something about it, unlike Porsche, who just seem to be happy to whine and litigate....
As FT says, the way some folk are going on about it, you'd think being encouraged to drive something that falls under the 225g/km threshold is akin to being herded into a cattle truck. Spare a thought for those of us who have no choice but to drive sub 3.0 litre bangers around cos that's all we can afford to run! Life, alas, is full of compromises, few of us are in a position to be lucky enough that this is not so. Folk are going on as if the choice is between two extremes - but it's not, what about the countless cars in between?
> how on earth do you fit a married couple, baby, suitcases etc and two dogs in a Band B
> car?
Who says it has to be Band B? Plenty of spacious large C, D and E cars out there that would do the job for the same £8 it would cost now to drive into the CC zone. Although why one would be taking their entire family, luggage and dogs into central London, heaven only knows!
I'm as sceptical as the rest of us, though, I'm guessing this is all merely a portent of what is to come. Enjoy your motoring while you still can, I say, we're at the end of a golden age...
|
Let's take BMW as an example as they've already been mentioned. A slightly older 530i may well produce enough CO2 to bump it into the demon £25 CC category but the new 530i? That produces if I'm not mistaken a mere 180g/km or thereabouts of CO2. In fact the only models in the current 5 series line-up which would now fall into the higher category are the 540i and the M5.
Thats great for those who have £35,000 in their back pocket to change their car to suit ken. Most people don't.
It sounds to be like this charge should have been introduced for Band G or above cars instead of Band F above a certain level of emissions. The government realised it was unfair to penalise existing owners with a new super-tax - so when they introduced Band G, they applied it only to cars registered after the date of the announcement.
Why can Ken not do the same?
Folk are going on as if the choice is between two extremes - but it's not what about the countless cars in between?
Why should you have to sell your car, which you may have owned for years, to get something not quite as good? And how is a London resident supposed to sell a car in this new Band at anything approaching its previous market value?!
|
>> Why use the congestion charge as a tool for pollution where's the link? Substitute fewer cars and/or less polluting ones and you have quite obviously got the link.
Except that the charge is encouraging diesel cars and buses and diesel exhausts are smellier and nastier than petrol (think particulates). If you have ever stood behind a bus you will know what I mean.
|
Red Ken is blatantly a car hating little man who is abusing his office to impose his will on London. Drivers of poluting cars are a soft target as the populus won't sympathise with them, but if you think about it for a minute, if you live in a city, why the hell should you have to pay to drive your car around - it's a gross liberty.
I am absolutely gutted that in a population of 8 million, all we could offer in opposition is that absolute buffon Boris Johnstone, and why doesn't he make a bit of an effort with the chance he's got and field some serious policy BTW I could do a better job than that prat.
Rant over
BTW this just goes to show how great Porsche are & how they look after their customers (Intermediate Shaft Failure issue aside)
Edited by perleman on 21/02/2008 at 11:13
|
what i said was...that i believe this LEZ (London Emission Zone) which extends to the whole of Greater London, will eventually be 'morphed' into a car catching emissions zone, rather than just a lorry one as it is at present, which will dramatically extend the current boundaries of the Congestion Zone....if i'm correct this will affect many, many thousands of people, a fair chunk of which never go anywhere near the centre.
for those that are confused, London has a central congestion zone, which has recently been extended from Westminster to Chelsea. This only covers the very centre of the capital. Further to that and completely separate is a brand new Emission Zone, which covers the whole of Greater London (very roughly the inside of the M25). The latter one is for lorries only and covers an enormous area compared to the former. i.e. the former includes two London Boroughs, whereas the latter has 33 London Boroughs.
I have no wish to travel into Central London and avoid it like the plague...however i would like to be able to drive home, to/from work and leave for longer journeys without worrying about an excessive tax.......and that's the way it seems to be heading....and other towns/cities in the country ought to be worried as well.
FT, If you can name me one band B car that would be appealing to a car enthusiast then i'd be willing to do the chat room equivalent of 'eating my hat'. My essential criteria are; comfort, speed, space, all the modern gadgets inc decent stereo, bit of prestige/feel good factor.
|
FT If you can name me one band B car that would be appealing to a car enthusiast then i'd be willing to do the chat room equivalent of 'eating my hat'. My essential criteria are; comfort speed space all the modern gadgets inc decent stereo bit of prestige/feel good factor.
Ah! Why must it be a band A or band B car, I wonder? Is this a diversionary Device to show how bad the new charge level will be, whereas in fact the £25 charge will be for band G cars only, and most cars will be charged an unchanged amount, and actually more will qualify for the 100% discount? There are many cars which you can drive on the "standard" charge, as I'm sure you know.
|
Ah! Why must it be a band A or band B car I wonder? Is this a diversionary Device to show how bad the new charge level will be whereas in fact the £25 charge will be for band G cars only and most cars will be charged an unchanged amount and actually more will qualify for the 100% discount? There are many cars which you can drive on the "standard" charge as I'm sure you know.
because that's the only sort of vehicle that currently has an exemption within the congestion zone...and it's my belief, now stated for the 3rd time, that the congestion zone will be extended to fill the recently implemented LEZ zone, within which i live....and i don't wish to pay extra to drive my cars around, nor drive a heap.....and i believe a band A or a band B car is a heap....unless of course you can show me otherwise, having stated firmly above that i was somewhat blinkered in my views?
|
....and i don't wish to pay extra to drive my cars around nor drive a heap.....and i believe a band A or a band B car is a heap....unless of course you can show me otherwise having stated firmly above that i was somewhat blinkered in my views?
I dont think a band A/B car is a heap (hyperbole?) but they are without doubt small, less safe, and less comfortable than something better.
I don't think the tax will make much real difference to people's habits. Families will still need a larger car when with their sprogs. They might even buy a small car specially for London (and incur the pollution costs of the car manufacture.) £40 per week equates to £2,000 per year, which far outweighs the purchase, maintenance and insurance cost of a small car.
And as I mentioned earlier, other groups such as charities (meals for the elderly, Oxfam etc) will be driven out of London.
snip
Edited by Webmaster on 22/02/2008 at 10:12
|
I dont think a band A/B car is a heap (hyperbole?) but they are without doubt small less safe and less comfortable than something better.
harrumph...yes well maybe you're right....but having driven several small cars recently they do not inspire me one little bit. One of them an auto VW Polo, virtually brand new, did everything very well for what it was...but...if that was what my motoring future had to be it would be the end of the world (more exaggeration)...but you get my drift
i hop into a 9 yr old car that needs both bumpers re-doing again (courtesy of selfish London parkers) and the drivers seat wearing a little (due to my increasing porkiness).. and get real pleasure form driving it...smooth, comfortable, quick, willing V6, decent stereo, climate etc.....a small car can do none of this and leaves me completely cold..they are just 'things', whereas my car, to me, has soul... despite the fact it's probably only half the value of a new supermini, maybe less than that
why should a politician try to oust me from it.... I may be wrong, but i suspect Ken has me and thousands of others on his agenda and i don't like it. This country as a whole does very well in trying to do the right thing, environment wise and i generally support that, but in reality getting me (and others similar) to drop this particular pleasure doesn't make a great difference at all....it is the politics of envy..and it stinks.
|
it is the politics of envy..and it stinks.
I am not sure that Mr. Livingstone is envious of your old banger! A point I made earlier about "the politics of envy" - big highly polluting cars are affordable by many.
|
|
I did put it to you that you've an extremely blinkered approach. This was because you appear to think that all cars which are eligible for a lower charge are "truly dreadful" (see your article edited on Wed 20 Feb 08 at 22:36). The lower charge applies to many cars which you might like -why prevaricate and now switch to saying you must have a charge exempt car? Don't you know about the residents? 90% discount (although it does not apply to "band G" cars)?
|
The lower charge applies to many cars which you might like -why prevaricate and now switch to saying you must have a charge exempt car? Don't you know about the residents? 90% discount (although it does not apply to "band G" cars)?
FT...I'm not switching, i'm saying i don't want to pay anything at all. I don't see why i'd have to pay 10%, for a residents discount , let alone a Band G price....and to achieve that i'd have to have an exempt one.
|
do the chat room equivalent of 'eating my hat'.
Punch a hole in your monitor? Swallow your mouse and then pull it back out by its flex? Drive extremely badly on purpose until pulled, then talk your way out of it?
The possibilities are endless.
:o}
|
Except that the charge is encouraging diesel cars and buses and diesel exhausts are smellier and nastier than petrol (think particulates).
Of course petrol cars don't produce them do they?!
Err, actually they do, and more of the smaller ones that harm asthmatics...
Face it, all exhaust emissions are bad for us, but if you have one bus with 50 people on it in the rush hour it produces less of them than fifty cars each with one person in it...
|
I'm sorry to appear heartless.
Porsche sell probably half their UK cars in the London area. Hence their challenge.
The writing is on the wall for larger cars. They will not be banned just made increaingly more and more expensive to run.
Oil prices are not rising for fun. Oil refining capacity in the West is going nowhere, demand is rising and new oil finds are not replacing consumption.
Intelligent consumers go with the flow and when they change cars go for smaller or less CO2 producers.
Believe me, if you think this is bad, it will get a lot worse in the next 10 years.
Blaming Ken is futile and childish. Economics will out in the long run.
Adapt or spend a lot more in the future.
Edited by madf on 21/02/2008 at 19:32
|
Oil prices are not rising for fun.
No, they are rising becuase pricing is controlled by a CARTEL which would be illegal anywhere else, and at the moment becuase of a combination of a weak dollar and investors with no real interest in oil using oil stocks as a hedge against the aforementioned weak dollar.
Purely basing price on supply and demand, we should be around $60-70 right now.
|
controlled by a CARTEL which would be illegal anywhere else
Where else is there?
You mean they have proper business law on other planets? Or are we talking other galaxies?
|
>> controlled by a CARTEL which would be illegal >> anywhere else Where else is there?
How about the EU or the USA? Did you really need to ask that?
|
The EU is a massive oil producer isn't it, likewise it has huge refining, wholesaling, and retailing arms, or at what level does it operate a cartel?
Oh and with all the speculators around I suppose that it controls those as well?
|
How about the EU or the USA? Did you really need to ask that?
Yes, I did. I thought the EU and the USA were on this planet and had their fuel prices carefully fixed by the same conspiracy that fixes them here?
Don't be taken in by local variations.
|
>> >> Except that the charge is encouraging diesel cars and buses and diesel exhausts are smellier >> and nastier than petrol (think particulates). Of course petrol cars don't produce them do they?! Err actually they do and more of the smaller ones that harm asthmatics...
Sure petrol fumes are not so nice either, but the particulates are particularly nasty.
I cannot speak for London but here in London buses are usually almost empty except at peak hours. So the polution of 8 small cars is being created to chaufeur one or two people and a driver about.
|
I cannot speak for London but here in London buses are usually almost empty except at peak hours. So the polution of 8 small cars is being created to chaufeur one or two people and a driver about.
From the title of the thread we are talking London and not anywhere else - and I was talking particularly about the rush hour when a bus is far more efficient than a car...
As regards particulates - petrol produces more of the small ones which they now reckon are more harmful than the visible ones you can see with diesel - however both are bad for us all so why encourage them - if this reduces the number of vehicles, or encourages cleaner ones, then I can't see any logical objection to it.
Quote "this increase will not affect 80% of cars coming into London" - the minority are ceratinly a vocal lot, aren't they!
|
Quote "this increase will not affect 80% of cars coming into London" - the minority are ceratinly a vocal lot aren't they!
Ken's using the same technique that authorities have always used to get popular support for unpleasant policies, by targeting 'luxury cars' or '4x4s' he's playing on people's prejudices and
misconceptions in order to start implementing his car hating plans.
If people don't speak out about them and oppose his plans he'll be able to say he's got popular support for them, when in fact he hasn't. So glad I don't live in London!
|
If you think $50 oil will solve the problem, I can assure you that most alternative fuel - and oil from shale - start becoming uneconomic...BP has just stopped a major investment in Alaska for extraction of very heavy crude oil (20 billion barrels gross), cos taxes have risen...
|
Good to see the 'politics of envy' being quoted all over the place.
The only 'politics of envy' I see is along the lines of:
It's not fair that he is happy driving that car and paying no congestion charge, whereas I have to drive that car and have to pay extra.
I suppose you could always walk.
|
I suppose you could always walk.
and this furthers the conversation? How unhelpful was that comment? I can only presume you are aware that you are posting on a motoring website, where quite a lot of people are car buffs.
For the record I work shifts at unsocial hours and have to travel sidways 7 miles for work (i.e. not in and out which the public transport systems are mainly geared up for) in an outer London borough. I could physically do it on buses but it would take an enormous amount of time, probably 4 or 5 times as long, but at least well and truly over the 15-20 mins in a car....and the night buses are erratic... Wife, being a school teacher, needs car for books etc and has to travel 5 miles to outer edges, near M25, no realistic public transport option. Furthermore safety wise there is no way on this planet she would get on public transport here anyway, of that I have been assured, e.g. when one of the cars needs a service etc.
If Left leaning politicians want us out of our cars, how about making public transport safer by having guards on them and confronting yobbery, rather than pretending it isn't there when it is.
|
Mr FotheringtonThomas
May i first congratulate you on having such a fine name.
Anyway i digress.
If i could just comment on your replies to my earlier post.
With regards to air quality, I believe that it is in fact a lot of the diesels that are responsible for the 'terrible air quality'. They kick out particulates (100x more than a petrol engine), and have in fact been linked to asthma and even heart disease.
(BBC have done a couple of articles on it)
Now because diesels do more mpg and less co2, everyone is buying them and therfore this is actually exacerbating the situation.
'Substitute fewer cars, and/or less polluting ones, and you have, quite obviously, got the link'
I don't get your point, are you telling me that letting in cars for free under 120g CO2 is going to be better for the environment and congestion???
You are so mistaken.
Also do you not see the correlation between distance travelled and CO2.
Taken Person A.
Owns a car, 119g CO2 uses it daily, at every opportunity. Roughly 100 miles a week
Person B
Owns a car, 249g CO2 uses it twice a week. Roughly 20 miles a week.
So tell me,
Which one is the bigger polluter.
Which one is percieved as the bigger polluter.
Lastly are you aware that alot of London's taxis actually admit more than 225g CO2, so not only are they are outputting high levels of CO2 (Band G £25 Per Day) but also high levels of particulates.
|
Also do you not see the correlation between distance travelled and CO2. Taken Person A. Owns a car 119g CO2 uses it daily at every opportunity. Roughly 100 miles a week Person B Owns a car 249g CO2 uses it twice a week. Roughly 20 miles a week.
You're right. What we need is a scheme to encourage owners of more polluting cars to drive them less. If only we can persuade all of these people to drive such cars half the distance as they would if they had a lower emissions vehicle, we'd be on the right track. But how can we do that? Thinks. I know! Let's introduce extra charges based on carbon emissions!
Oh, wait...
|
'You're right. What we need is a scheme to encourage owners of more polluting cars to drive them less. If only we can persuade all of these people to drive such cars half the distance as they would if they had a lower emissions vehicle, we'd be on the right track. But how can we do that? Thinks. I know! Let's introduce extra charges based on carbon emissions!'
Oh come on, i think you've been sucking on an exhaust pipe for too long.
Are you telling me that charging £25 per day for more polluting vehicles is going to make a difference.
Let me just check, you are in favour of cars who admit more than 225g CO2 to be charged £25.
So, if my car admits 224g CO2 that's OK, drive away, £8 a day
And if my car admits less than 120g CO2, hey what the hell, no charge sir, go for it.
That's going to help is it? Talk about missing the original point.
What i love about these arguments is the self righteousness of people in support of these schemes.
I'd like to ask everyone to simply look at their own 'green' credentials.
Does you household own more then 1 car.
How often do you use you car
How often do you fly
Why not, all posters in favour and against this scheme, post there yearly CO2 output, and let's see what the results say, hmm.
|
Why not all posters in favour and against this scheme post there yearly CO2 output and let's see what the results say hmm.
Good idea. I've no idea how much my yearly C02 output is, but I drive a 228g/km car approx 5k miles a year. I often use public transport, I'll often use the train for long journeys and my last plane trip was nearly 3 years ago.
|
>> Why not all posters in favour and against this scheme post there yearly CO2 output >> and let's see what the results say hmm.
No probs - drive a 120km/gm car about 12k a year and use the train for half my daily commute. Use a plane once a year to get to some part of Eastern Europe - have used train for that journey, but I lose a day each way doing so... use the train when I get there to travel around...
|
No probs - drive a 120km/gm car about 12k a year and use the train for half my daily commute. Use a plane once a year to get to some part of Eastern Europe - have used train for that journey but I lose a day each way doing so... use the train when I get there to travel around...
I see. So you pollute more than I do, your car contributes more carbon per year than mine does, yet I must pay more road tax, pay £25 to drive into London, and be seen by society as unenvironmentally friendly.
Interesting.
|
What i love about these arguments is the self righteousness of people in support of these schemes.
As opposed to the "It's so unfair!" adolescent whingeing of those in support, you mean? I do like a game two can play.
I'd like to ask everyone to simply look at their own 'green' credentials.
Good idea.
Does you household own more then 1 car.
No. Dunno what the CO2 emissions are but we don't pay the top rate of VED.
How often do you use you car
Generally only at the weekends. The car does about 8,000 miles a year, down from 12,000 five years ago. This is divided between two drivers, though there are rarely fewer than three people in the car.
How often do you fly
Last time was 18 months ago. Won't be flying in 2008.
Self-righteous enough for you?
|
My point is Baskerville, like b308 he drives a 225+ vehicle but only does 5k a year.
He is pilloried by society as being irresponsible.
You on the other hand drive a car under 225g CO2 and are therefore not being stereotyped as irresponsible even though you drive more than double 'b308'.
(I can't comment on the airtravel comparisson as 'b308' states once a year travel to East Europe whereas you simply stated no travel in 2008 and last air travel 2006)
By the way fair play and self righteouness are two very different conditions.
Although unfairness is often the reaction of self righteouness.
Eg,
South Africa In Favour Of Apartheid.
Self Righteous White Minority
'It's So Unfair' Black Majority
Comprendre
|
Eg South Africa In Favour Of Apartheid. Self Righteous White Minority 'It's So Unfair' Black Majority Comprendre
You are not really comparing the plight of people who drive high fuel consumption cars and *have a choice* to change their vehicle or their behaviour with the suffering of the black population of South Africa under apartheid are you? I'll assume not.
>>drive more than double 'b308'.
You mean MichaelR I guess. if so my 8,000 is not double his 5,000, but in any case I do almost none of my driving in urban areas and specifically choose not to--that's the point of this charge.
|
Oops
Apologies to b308 and MichaelR for muddling them up.
|
|
Diesel particulates are known and action has been taken -ULSD, and DPF. The real issue for potential harm is petrol cars. Because the mass of the ultra fine particles is so small, they don't figure largely in the analysis carried out thus far, but UF particles are common to all lean running engines. So petrol is just as much an issue as diesel, except that there have been few efforts to deal with it, especially in the USA. A polemic on pollutants: www.stealthtdi.com/Emissions.html
|
It's not just a Congestion Charge any more. It's a Congestion Reducing Anti Pollution charge. *
I don't understand why Ken has gone to the extremes i.e. how does letting in more 225g/km cars will come down but nowhere near as much as the extra cars about getting in free. Congestion doesn't matter on the size of cars so it is likely to get worse (though probably mitigated by fiddling the traffic lights back to their old settings). Probably pollution worse too, through the extra volume of cars more than offsetting the reduced pollutants of each individual.
I agreed with the original congestion charge, because it was an area already very well served by public transport, both inside the area and in terms of getting to it, and one where less than 10% of commutes to it were by car anyway.
What I dislike the continual moving of the goalposts. A big engined car was once seen as green if converted to LPG and given a 100% concession. In a couple of years time, that same car will be stung with a £25 per day charge.
The original scheme may have disincentivised those living in the relatively more residential western area from driving into the east, perhaps encouraging a commute by tube but allowing other tasks to be done by car if needed. Under the current (and impending) scheme, once the daily charge has been paid, you may as well drive around all day.
I drive a car that does 245g/km (that happens to be a Porsche) and work in central London. However, I 'do my bit' by walking to the station then commuting by train from the outskirts and so the car is only really used at the weekend. I use the available alternatives and so never have to pay the congestion charge.
What does worry me is how the scheme could expand in the future, particularly if the figures for central London are sufficiently massaged to appear a success. Other cities may not have the public transport provision. At least not sufficient with a much bigger proportion of car journeys made than central London. Other parts of London may not be suitable either.
Where I live, they have the 'Smarter Travel Sutton' scheme to encourage greener transport use, although in comparison to other parts of London, congestion is probably not that bad. While trains to commute out of Sutton are quite effective, despite the recent persuasion, anything I want to do in the borough, or especially if going into Surrey, a car is much more effective. If I was charged to take the car out of the garage for my leisure pursuits, I would just have to pay on those occasions. Those suffering the most would be on lower incomes or who work in the borough without alternatives and have no choice but to pay every day.
* To fit the acronym with the site's informal preferred alternative, it should be the Congestion Alleviating Reducing Pollution charge. Still doesn't mean it will meet either objective.
|
I am one of those who sees Ken as being in the politics of envy group.
But it would be rather ironic if the £25 congestion charge increased the sale of high end cars among the filthy rich. No longer do they have to wear an ostentatious watch, and hope someone sees it. Now all they need do is drive a Porsche. Perhaps central London will fill up with bankers in Porsches.
|
|
Lol This is funny as I was just thinking the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
