"Mr Livingstone also revealed that cars with the lowest carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will receive a 100% discount from the daily charge"
So if everyone changed their cars to lowest emissions the result will be more congestion and no charge?
I don't get it and I'm glad I don't live or travel to London anymore.
|
|
|
My view is simple. 4x4s belong in the countryside. Anyone who drives one in London deserves to be fleeced as they clearly have no common sense:-)
Except that some people such as working farmers cannot afford to run multiple cars, and so they use the 4x4 on the farm, or to pull a horse box, and to drive into London. That is the problem with class hatred (which is what Ken is all about), it is indiscriminate.
|
>Leif
Fine.
That example must cover 0.0001% of all 4x4s in London..
And occasional 4x4 vistors are hardly going to be fleeced every day.
|
>Leif Fine. That example must cover 0.0001% of all 4x4s in London.. And occasional 4x4 vistors are hardly going to be fleeced every day.
Actually it will hit more than that. There was an example in the Sunday Times of a florist who needed a van for deliveries. They had to move from the original congestion zone as they could not afford the costs. They are in the proposed expanded zone, and will have to leave again. If they can. And I doubt the 0.001% figure. A lot of people have a large car to tow a caravan/horse/box/whatever.
The congestion zone has largely failed and is a job employment scheme for a large empire. (A bit like speed cameras then.)
|
|
|
>Leif Fine. That example must cover 0.0001% of all 4x4s in London..
Oh and I forgot about charities. AFAIK there is no exemption. So a charity that delivers meals on wheels, or chauffeurs old/disabled people about will have to avoid the zone. And you won't get any Oxfam shops in the zone. These are unintended consequence of an ill thought out scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
>>My view is simple.
Yes it is4x4s belong in the countryside.
Have you seen the state of the roads and all the road humps in London?
Anyone who drives one in London deserves to be fleeced as they clearly have no common sense:-)
I note the :-) but I have to drive my wife to a London Hospital.
IIRC a 2.0l Auto Mondeo is caught in the same net.
Oh such a gas guzzling machine that only the rich would aspire to :-(.
Many are being punished for opting for an auto. That is obviously unfair on many people who need an auto.
A Congestion charge has transformed into a Carbon tax.
Oh silly me I forgot the mayoral election is coming up, yesterday it was £MM cycle fiasco and there is still the Olympics to pay for ( the CC is loosing money)
|
"Have you seen the state of the roads and all the road humps in London?"
This I have to completely agree with 4 x 4 handle speed bumps and potholes much better than most cars.
|
All the stuff about hizonner and Trotskyist infiltration makes me feel I am in a time warp. That far-left stuff is somewhat out of fashion these days. Bunny-hugging and making broad claims about global warming are in.
The point about KL isn't that he is a gauchiste, but that he is an experienced, shrewd, pretty unscrupulous politician who personally hates and disapproves of the privately owned automobile, and has the clout to make its life a misery. He just doesn't care about the collateral damage to cash-strapped individuals who need their cars, or the streets of London covered with expensive, obstructive carp and filled with ridiculous third-world articulated buses when any fule kno the double decker is much better. He thinks it's all in a good cause: suppression of the private automobile.
Bad cess to the little carphound. Not that Boris, if he wins, will be able to undo much in the short term.
|
|
|
Only because so many cars these days have stupid big alloy wheels and low profile tyres, with stiff suspension.
If manufacturers fitted sensible tyres and more compliant suspension, travel would be a lot more comfortable; only motoring journalists who like to fling cars round corners would be unhappy.
|
My Yaris goes OK over speedhumps: we have a lot round us.
I say no more on needing 4x4s to cross them.
|
|
|
Mini or 4x4. It's personal choice....or at least it would be in a democracy. It's beginning to echo a facist state, who punish you if you dare to step out of what they deem acceptable.
|
|
|
well, my 2.4 accord tourer falls in to the "gas guzzler" category.
Good job i have just ordered a new diesel mondeo estate. I am a bit miffed that when i come to sell my accord, its value may well fall through the floor.
But i have also ordered a new car for one of the engineers and that falls in the zero rate for con charge. Hurrah!
Swings and roundabouts i suppose
|
You may not like KL but this is not a fascist state.
It is perfectly obvious - and has been for at least 5 years - that oil prices are going up... and the UK is not building more roads.. and London IS congested and
any politicians with any nous WILL put 2 and 2 together and tax bigger cars.
If you choose to buy large petrol engine cars (I refer to size here), then it requires little insight to see you will be a target in london and probably elsewhere for tax.
You have a choice: buy smaller cars or pay tax.
It's unfair but you have a choice. If your family/work means you need a big car, then I'm sorry.
Fascism meand NO choice.
|
|
|
madf,
Sorry but your arguement against 4x4's doesnt stack up - the Merc ML, not my favorite car by a long shot BUT it is just 2mm longer than the current Mondeo hatch and actually shorter than the saloon, nor is it appreciably wider. So its no bigger, thus takes up no more space than the Ford.
Yes it has high emissions, but it would have these high emissions wherever it was used, London or not.
However, looking at say the hybrid Lexus RX, its emissions are near as dammit the same at the most powerful diesel Mondeo, so again, no real difference there.
Persecuting 4x4's as a group is a completely false campaign - to attack a class of car RATHER than a particular make and model is too broad - the RX-L is actually the same size and emissions as a Mondeo diesel estate, so by that logic, Ken better ban Mondeos from London since size/emissions are apparently the focus of complaints.
|
>Stu
I have no argument against 4x4s: if people want to buy them and run them in town with the associated costs, that's fine by me.
BUT, they are an obvious target for revenue generation (my argument), politically incorrect (whether they should be is another issue.. they ARE), and easy to identify.
When you have a man in charge who NEEDS to raise revenue and has a congestion charging system, they are an OBVIOUS target.
So my argument is anyone owning them and driving in London should not complain: it's been a virtual certainty they would be taxed.
If people want to drive cars that are more heavily taxed than others, it's their choice.
|
|
|
|
The cost of running the C Charge system means it struggles to cover it's costs apparently. So doing this might raise money if people do not change their ways.
It's called congestion charge but I don't think it's been all about congestion all along. Now if Ken was really bothered about CO2 and managed to entice everyone into new low emission vehicles that are exempt from the charge, one of two things would happen:
- No income to run the C Charge system and it closes down
- No income and they reduce the CO2 threshold and these people have to pay again
I go with the second option. Annoying those who just purchased a car producing 119g/km CO2
|
Well well...a thread with an element of politics in it !
You don't see too many of those on here
|
No income and they reduce the CO2 threshold and these people have to pay again
You've hit the nail on the head there. A bit like campaigns to get us to smoke and drink less. If they succeed, taxes raised go down and expenditure on pensions and geriatric care go up so something else will be taxed instead.
|
|
|
|
Need to agree with RTJ here, if we all comply and buy nice small cars, then nice small bicycles then nice small, shoes, we would still eventually be taxed. He needs the money and has to get it from somewhere, demonising a group just makes it easier.
And a lot of people are falling for it!!
|
At least they haven't singled out 4x4's as the sole offenders in the planet-killing hype.
High performance cars are often worse guzzlers than 4x4's - until you come to high-performance 4x4's!
People who drive gas guzzlers can obviously afford the fuel, otherwise they'd run more economical vehicles. It would be fair to allow 3 or 4 exempt visits per year for these drivers, though, on days of their choice.
|
I think it would be a good thing if we had to buy economical cars. All cars these days, even the humblest base models of hatchbacks, have at least 'adequate' performance for sensible road use. The writing has been on the wall for gas guzzlers for years but as the oil begins to run out or get diverted to other consumer nations, the writing gets bolder.
For me it's nothing to do with global warming - it's dwindling oil supplies that will force the issue, and probably quite soon. New legislation in the USA intended to reduce dependency on imported oil could see the virtual end of the V8 as Americans learn to love 4 cylinders in home-produced cars as well as imported ones. Audi is pressing to get Americans to love diesel cars too. At the same time Audi introduce the diesel version of the R8, with a 6 litre V12 500 bhp diesel! Madness, maybe, but with a method in it!
|
But be aware that he did say that if congestion/CO2 tax exemption for cars under 121g/km led to loo much congestion then a tax on them might have to be re-introduced.
Well looking at the news article on the right today: " MINIs and BMWs Beat New Congtestion Charge "
www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/item.htm?id=4358 ; full article worth reading, but here are some snippets:
".... BMW 118d three- and five-door, MINI Cooper D and MINI Clubman D exempt from Congestion Charge ..
.. "BMW and MINI combined cut CO2 emissions in 2007 by nearly as much as all other manufacturers combined. Quite an achievement." ..
Diesel-powered BMW X5 and X6 owners celebrate and save £4,335 a year
The BMW X5 3.0d and 3.0sd are now the only conventionally-powered vehicles in the segment with automatic transmissions as standard with CO2 emission figures that fall below the 225g/km band for Congestion Charging. ..
.. the owner of a new diesel-powered X5 will save £4,335 a year in Congestion Charge fees compared with rival, non-hybrid Sports Activity and Sports Utility Vehicles. The low emissions rating for the X5 3.0d and 3.0sd also qualify it for Band F instead of Band G Vehicle Excise Duty, saving owners a further £95 a year. This benefit is set to increase to £190 a year from 1 April 2008 ..
The BMW X6, .. , is another model from the BMW line-up to slip under the 225g/km threshold ..., BMW?s EfficientDynamics technology ensures that these exciting high-performance diesels remain in the £8-a-day charging tier. ..
Cleaner than a London black cab
By comparison the latest diesel-powered BMW X5s emit less CO2 than the Mayor of London?s preferred means of transport, the black cab. .. "
|
I also read that he's taking away the 100% exemption from hybrid cars.
Persuade people on the benefits of LPG, and then once they've forked out roughly £2.5k for a conversion, screw them.
Well done Ken
Any drivers who support Ken must either be;
A. Ken
B. Mad
or
C. You can't use the zone, or you'd realise it's a complete waste of money and doesn't really work.
|
But... "Persuade people on the benefits of LPG, and then once they've forked out roughly £2.5k for a conversion, screw them."
LPG is not hybrid and never was. Dual fuel maybe but no hybrid.
|
The thing that often seems omitted from simplistic headline grabbing "£25 tax for 4x4s to drive in London" is that the congestion charge only applies to effectively the Zone 1 of the tube map (and might actually be smaller than that) and only Monday to Friday and only until 6pm at night. So it does not apply to the vast majority of London or London destinations and when most leisure trips occur.
Strangely enough most Londoners are not driving to Oxford street to go shopping or to visit a gallery or museum mainly because there is nowhere to park or at least park at a reasonable rate. So the idea that there are herds of people prevented from going about their normal business in their Jeep Cherokees is a frankly a bit mad...90% of the population is on public transport/bikes or foot.
I for one am very pleased with the Congestion charge. It certainly physchologically has helped make non car based travel a greater priority, made it more effective and made people think twice about using the car to make cross centre journeys.
|
My bad
Arrrggghhh. Please, "my mistake", not "my bad". That is a foul Americanism (and bad grammar there) that must not be allowed to enter this over crowded not so green land.
|
>>I reckon we've got two years from October before that happens in the likelyevent he gets re-elected
Has he said he would honour the promise to let tiddlers in for nothing, HJ? I missed it.
One has to admit he makes sense all right. After all people who like cars don't have a monopoly on sense, and unfortunately they have a barmy side, bless them.
But lots of people make sense who you wish would just slope off and do the right thing. Part of the human condition.
Two years eh? Wish I could afford a new tiddler. Of course the early morning tippling is endearing to any reasonable, relaxed, experienced person. Perfectly reasonable it looks like. But there's something sort of, er, fundamentalist about the attitude to cars. Nothing unusual of course. Some of my nearest and dearest etc etc etc.... But then they aren't mayor.
Edited by Lud on 12/02/2008 at 22:35
|
So the day arrives and theres not a 4X4 to be seen in london. Then the man decides that 2 seater sports cars have no place, followed by estate cars, people carriers......
Don't worry yet then if you own one of those, just ignore the petty , spiteful politics of envy and class that is being waged against a vehicle described as a 4X4
|
Why doesnt he just ban all cars from london and give them rickshaws, if he REALLY cares, which he doesnt, he just wants a pension.
Or if we are still allowed to use fossil fuels, how about one of these on a cold windy night for our Ken: www.piaggioape.co.uk/calessino/
|
"Why doesnt he just ban all cars from London "
Or just go the whole hog and ban all future development of any offices/factories/shops/house/ flats inside the M25? How can these people try to develop all these things then complain about congestion/pollution and blame car drivers?
Car drivers are only responding to the factors that are actually responsible for the congestion. Perhaps if an equal amount was spent on public transport/infrastructure as is spent on property development there wouldn't be the congestion/pollution.
|
So the day arrives and theres not a 4X4 to be seen in london. Then the man decides that 2 seater sports cars have no place followed by estate cars people carriers...... Don't worry yet then if you own one of those just ignore the petty spiteful politics of envy and class that is being waged against a vehicle described as a 4X4
I think it is the media that continually refer to 4x4's. The charge is on vehicles with high CO2 output, not exclusively 4x4, so there is no politics of envy or class against 4x4's. Strange that you think 4x4 is a class issue. We have an old 92 Pajero bought off ebay last year for £995 and we are not upper class by any measure.
|
|
I don't see owning a 4x4 as a class issue. Unfortunately Red Ken does.
|
I always thought 4x4s were a waste of time unless you lived in the country, and only a small minority need them then. But don't we live in a democracy where freedom of choice is allowed?
4x4s this year. Sports cars next year. Family cars the next year. Superminis after that....
If everyone drove a zero emissions car then the charges would be adjusted to catch the majority.
|
Would i be right in thinking that any 4x4 (or any other high emission vehicle) made before a certain date in 2000 escapes the extra charge. as well as any additional costs on the tax disc?
Thanks
Mark
|
>>I think it is the media that continually refer to 4x4's.The charge is on vehicles with high CO2 output, not exclusively 4x4, so there is no politics of envy or class against 4x4's
>>
Well I saw KL's little speech in which he referred to " Chelsea Taxis" rather than "vehicles with high CO2 output". I wonder why he chose his words so carefully , as he always does. :-(
|
|
|
|
|
This I have to completely agree with 4 x 4 handle speed bumps and potholes much better than most cars.
You don't need 4WD for speed bumps, just a generous ground clearance and not-too-stiff suspension. Something like a Rover Streetwise in fact. :-)
Edited by Typ 8L on 14/02/2008 at 13:17
|
|
|
|
|
|
