Moneysaving- dont buy a 4x4 in london!

Thenotsowyzewun

I think new terms and conditions for usage of her majesty's highway should be imposed when people goto get their car tax renewed.
Basically, they should be forced to sign a contract making it illegal for them to do many of the un-environmentally friendly things they do today.
Owning a 4x4 without a license stating the purpose of ownership should be necessary too.
And green vehicles should be further subsidized, to bring pricing in-line (or below) their petrol-guzzling counterparts.

Still, I don't drive because of global warming, and it makes it very time-consuming getting anywhere. If more people were forced into making their journeys with public transport whenever possible the services would be alot better though (less cars on the road, more room for more buses!).

Did you know various american car makers bought up the highly developed network of tramlines in America, and dismantled them?

Dan29

Sybarite wrote:

it's not money saving is it? More expensive fuel, tyres, tax

More expensive than what?

Dan29

Thenotsowyzewun wrote:

Owning a 4x4 without a license stating the purpose of ownership should be necessary too.

What comes after that, having to ring someone to get permission to leave your house?

Can anyone explain to me why people get so worked up about 4-wheel-drive vehicles when many 2-wheel-drive vehicles are more polluting and take up more road space?

Thenotsowyzewun

What? They're worse than guns! - They kill more people in the UK than guns, and you ever heard anyone complaining about guns co2 emissions?

You need a license to get a gun, the logic follows :P.

BTW, did you know businesses have to pay an extra 96p per kilogram taxes on their petrol? (wonder how many don't pay up though...).

EDIT: And yes, I've got my own business (why else would I be up at this time :P). I just don't use petrol vehicles (I've got a bike hehe).

Altarf

Thenotsowyzewun wrote:

I think new terms and conditions for usage of her majesty's highway should be imposed when people goto get their car tax renewed.
Basically, they should be forced to sign a contract making it illegal for them to do many of the un-environmentally friendly things they do today.

Very liberal views you hold. Why stop there, how about preventing any travel at all unless certified as necessary by the government. But let's keep going, we had better close all the nasty airports, ration electricity (we would have to after closing all the coal, gas and oil power stations), stop all imports. Or could we go further.

Thenotsowyzewun wrote:

BTW, did you know businesses have to pay an extra 96p per kilogram taxes on their petrol? (wonder how many don't pay up though...).

What on earth are you talking about?

Sybarite

Dan29 wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why people get so worked up about 4-wheel-drive vehicles when many 2-wheel-drive vehicles are more polluting and take up more road space?

Yep I think so. Many SUVs have terrible fuel economy, using approximately 4x the typical petrol consumption of a typical mid-range car. In urban area fuel consumption can be as bad as 12mpg; worse in fact that the Model T Ford.

Cars haven't really been sold for their performance or value for money for a couple of decades - which is why we now have 'lifestyle' vehicles. Marketing of vehicles uses psychological profiling to identify key 'reponse factors' and adjust vehicles and advertising accordingly. So a desire on the drivers part for 'safety and security' can be exploited. SUVs are marketed as 'safe' cars, with an elevated driving postion for good visibility and a lot of metal surrounding you should you have an accident. The marketing positions them as an aggressive vehicle capable of enforcing a dominant position on the urban road, usually coupled with images of off-road isolation and the fantasy of exploration. The latter is of course very far from reality and the former only a half truth - there is more tendency for SUV's to roll on corners, they are certainly less safe for pedestrians and smaller car user in instances of collisions and the 4x greater particulate & greenhouse gas emissions aren't safer for anyone.

In fact, the large manufacturers have a real problem with global production overcapacity, SUVs have been a godsend for them & they've been keen to expolit the perception of desirability and target an urban market, where these vehicles aren't really suited and for which they were never really intended.

Why do they provoke such hostility? Well as much as their owners might see them as symbols of status or achievement, they also epitomise some of the most undesirable aspects associated with motoring - aggressive driving, blocking urban streets - the 'right to drive anywhere' mentality. Given the appalling fuel economy, when we now know the effects of fuel emissions to our immediate health through air quality and the publicised global impact of fossil fuel consumption, the urban SUV drivers sends out one clear message in their choice of vehicle 'my comfort and convenience comes first, stuff everyone and anything else - I want a big fat car'. They make an informed choice and as this type of vehicle isn't a necessity for all but a very few, it's a very selfish one.

Regarding other 2 wheel drive vehicles with high performance engines and equivalent levels of emissions; your point is certainly valid - these vehicles are equally detrimental from a pollution perspective. They tend not to attract such ire perhaps in part because they're generally of a typical vehicle size and aren't therefore seen as so inappropriate for urban use and don't increase the likelihood of serious injury in the case of a pedestrian collision in the way that SUVs do.

Vans & other vehicles, well they generally have a reason or purpose for being the size they are which is unavoidable. Although the shift in the 80s from rail distribution of freight to HGVs is another topic and a decision of such profound idiocy that only a politician could have made it. People carriers - the multiple occupancy argument has some validity.

We also fight wars for which there is limitless taxation revenue available and people die so we can secure our oil supply.

If anything dissuades Americans away from SUVs it's going to be the issue of body bags in exchange for 'energy security' and a desire for a domestic solution to their increasing energy needs. Hopefully the perversity of claiming that the purchase of a Hummer (those massive military jeeps that have been marketed for domestic comsumption as 'patriotic' vehicles & the worst of the SUVs) as an act of support for foreign military action will start to evaporate and be seen for the absurdity it is.

Dan29

Thanks for your reply; it's good to read a reasoned argument rather than more knee-jerk "I hate 'Chelsea tractors' because the media tells me to" rubbish.

Sybarite

Altarf wrote:

Very liberal views you hold. Why stop there, how about preventing any travel at all unless certified as necessary by the government. But let's keep going, we had better close all the nasty airports, ration electricity (we would have to after closing all the coal, gas and oil power stations), stop all imports.

But you seem not to appreciate that unless constructive, even painful measures are taken now some of these things will come, not out of choice but of necessity and they will be enforced by governments. After a couple of energy related wars and a scramble for land suitable for food productionas a result of climate change, I imagine the restrictions on travel and energy 'freedoms' will probably be quite profund. There is also the issue of future generations cursing our names for leaving an environmental overdraft.

You don't seem to appreciate the points being made in a broader context. It isn't necessarily about saving the planet, it's about managing the resources and balancing them with our desire for a certain standard of living in order & maintaining economic and social development.

I suspect you will be very aggrieved if petrol prices treble or airline tickets are 4x more expensive in a few years time. Who suffers if energy comsumption isn't re-evaluated? Well, in the long term you and I will. If you think the notion of environmental concern a little worth or beneath your personal agenda, then think of it in term of saving your own skin or not having to worry quite so much about what electricity will cost in 5-10years.

gromituk

Dan29 wrote:

What comes after that, having to ring someone to get permission to leave your house?

Eh? How can you possibly make such an extrapolation when we are being urged all the time to walk, cycle and take public transport?

Dan29

gromituk wrote:

Eh? How can you possibly make such an extrapolation when we are being urged all the time to walk, cycle and take public transport?

Because, as Altarf says, having to prove why you need a 4-wheel-drive vehicle before you can own one would be as ridiculous as having to justify every plane ticket you bought, ever electrical item you plugged in, etc etc.

Putting taxes up is one thing but stopping people spending their money on buying something they want sounds like the beginning of a very slippery slope.