Moneysaving- dont buy a 4x4 in london!

lynzpower

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/


http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=motoringNews&storyID=2006-07-12T132920Z_01_JON248487_RTRUKOC_0_TRANSPORT-CONGESTION-4X4.xml

LONDON (Reuters) - Drivers of the least environmentally friendly vehicles could face charges of up to 25 pounds a day to enter the capital's central congestion zone, under proposals outlined by mayor Ken Livingstone.

Livingstone told the London Assembly about plans for the charge to reflect the carbon emission of vehicles in the same way as cars are subjected to road tax.

The proposals would be for cleaner vehicles to pay slightly less than the current 8 pound charge while the more fuel-hungry would pay on an incremental scale, up to 25 pounds for gas-guzzlers like big 4x4 off-roaders.

Well, will red ken be remembered as green ken?

Lillibet_2

I'm in favour of anything that stops the advance of the SCRUMMY army:D

I say... Well done Ken:T

Debt_Free_Chick

I'm going to avoid the debate on the rights/wrongs etc of 4x4s in urban areas, but I don't see Ken's plans having much effect.

Firstly, he only seems interested in those 4x4s going in to the congestion zone. What about all those who are already in the zone? Or worse, those just outside the zone, which are still "in London" but don't go into the congestion zone. These are the ones that are likely to be used for the dreaded school run.

And, of course, commercial vehicles are probably even more damaging to the environment, in terms of carbon emissions.

Anyway, I think Ken has his own agenda - and it's not a lot to do with being green!

gromituk

Debt_Free_Chick wrote:

And, of course, commercial vehicles are probably even more damaging to the environment, in terms of carbon emissions.

But that's completely irrelevant, because commercial vehicles have a necessary purpose; urban 4x4s don't.

It's about as logical as saying that you shouldn't give up smoking because cars produce poisonous emissions.

Anyway, I think Ken has his own agenda - and it's not a lot to do with being green!

What's that then? Are you saying that there is an ulterior motive for the congestion charge AND sustainable energy requirements for new build AND investment in the Tube and buses AND investment in cycling? Despite his slick publicity machine, I do find him to be a breath of fresh air (in more ways than one).

Dead_Eye_Jones

Debt_Free_Chick wrote:

Firstly, he only seems interested in those 4x4s going in to the congestion zone.

The charge applies to vehicles moving only within the zone too, there are camera vans parked at random points to catch people who dont pay.

This extra charge does not apply to 4x4s by definition - it applies to cars that produce CO2 over a certain level. Efficient 4x4 vehicles will not pay, polluting smaller cars will.

Global climate change is real. We are not scaremongering, it is really happening. It may already be too late, if I had my way Id ban all non-commercial traffic. Yes it will be inconvenient, but no where near as inconvenient as the alternatives for our children, and their children. But hey, most of us dont care cos we'll be long gone...

lynzpower

Ken did say on the london tonight that he is also in favour of rolling it out over all six zones eventually, but I saw no articles stating this - so i couldnt "prove" it.

Personally Im with you dead eye jones, why anyone HAS to drive in london is beyond me aside from if you are experiencing mobility dificulties. Everyone I know who drives here is a disgrace, 2 mins to tescos in the car for a pint of milk etc. UNacceptable as far as Im concerned.

gromituk

The congestion charge is already being extended - look it up. The trouble is you have to spend millions installing all those cameras at the entrance/exit points.

Debt_Free_Chick

gromituk wrote:

But that's completely irrelevant, because commercial vehicles have a necessary purpose; urban 4x4s don't.

It's about as logical as saying that you shouldn't give up smoking because cars produce poisonous emissions.

We can only go on what's reported, but Reuters state "Drivers of the least environmentally friendly vehicles could face charges of up to 25 pounds a day to enter the capital's central congestion zone, under proposals outlined by mayor Ken Livingstone".

So if he has a green agenda, surely he would target ALL of the least environmentally vehicles?

In fact, further down the same article states "Livingstone told the London Assembly about plans for the charge to reflect the carbon emission of vehicles in the same way as cars are subjected to road tax."

So maybe he is after commercial vehicles too

If you have a green agenda, then it should be applied "across the board" and not used as an excuse to fight a different battle. To be fair to Ken, if the article is accurate, then that's what he's doing ... but the title of the thread suggested he was only targetting 4x4s. We don't know ... as this is just a throw-away line he gave out. There are no reports or proposals on paper yet. Which leads on to ....

What's that then? Are you saying that there is an ulterior motive for the congestion charge AND sustainable energy requirements for new build AND investment in the Tube and buses AND investment in cycling? Despite his slick publicity machine, I do find him to be a breath of fresh air (in more ways than one).

Because he's up for Election in less than 2 years time. And like every other elected policitian, he will say just about anything that he thinks will win him votes. Whether or not he - or any other politician - actually carries those comments forward to policies, which are then put in place, remains to be seen. However, these comments will certainly have any sceptical green voters thinking. Some may even vote for him on the basis of them.

Cynical? You bet. The time to congratulate him on his green policies is when he's actually put them into place.

Regards

tim_n

Actually I think like the majority of us he hates 4x4's and just wants them off the streets. I can't see the need for a 4x4 in the centre of London, it being generally agreed as not particularly boggy.

My friend owns a 4x4, good for him. He lives in the country down a mud lane and drives across fields at weekends. He does drive it into London occasionally when our servers go down, but he'd take the train if it was cheaper!

tanith

I have yet to hear a valid reason for driving a 4x4 in London.... I too have several neighbours who drive their kids to school in their gas guzzlers and the school is at the end of our road. then wonder why their kids don't have a clue how to cross the road if they have to...:eek:

Altarf

tanith wrote:

I have yet to hear a valid reason for driving a 4x4 in London

Being able to drive down speed calmed roads at a safe and legal speed without destroying your car.

Speed humps have been installed in the roads surrounding me that cannot be driven over in a normal car at more than 10mph, despite the fact that it is a 30mph limit and is safe to travel at that speed (open wide road, no parked cars, not near any schools, etc). So I have to drive at 10mph, but the lorry in front can do 40mph? Great job council on persuading me that my next car will be a 4x4.