Friday 27th October 2006

Council penalises sporty cars

Parking charges ratchet up in Richmnond

---

Porsche 911 Turbo: don't enjoy it too much

Drivers of high performance vehicles are being financially penalised in a closely watched experiment in the London borough of Richmond.

Richmond's street parking charges are to increase massively for residents who own vehicles with high CO2 emissions -- most sports cars and SUVs -- up to £300 a year in some cases. And those with two vehicles will pay 50 per cent more to park the second one.

In theory, the idea is to price people out of owning vehicles with high emissions, with the aim of helping to defeat climate change.

Reaction against the scheme has been huge. Tories on the London Assembly called it a stealth tax, with the local member suggesting that, if the aim was genuinely to reduce emissions, the local Lib Dem-run council should remove the subsidies and parking spaces for local council workers.

The RAC Foundation said that it would be more sensible to provide incentives for people to change vehicles rather than penalties. The AA Trust said that the scheme penalised people for the vehicles they owned rather than how they used them, which meant the scheme was more about rising revenue than climate change.

Environmentalists welcomed the scheme, saying they wanted to see more of the same elsewhere.

It just seems to be one more bunch of people who cannot see why others should be allowed to enjoy driving -- so make the most of your motor while you can.

[Drgp]

I saw the interview with the Richmond councillor on C4. He said the scheme was revenue neutral but a minute later said it would raise an additional £1 million for the borough.

They also noted that there is a tricky issue around all the poorer folk with old ford sierra's that pollute far more than any modern 4x4 and he said they still had to sort out the fine detail - but to exclude them from this would be to reveal that this is another tax on the middle classes.

Surely a parked car is less polluting than a moving one? And don't people who drive more pay more anyway through fuel tax?

I am so on my soap box today.

[BiggusLaddus]

Why should someone with a 15 yr old sports car (or smoky old transit) that does 15mpg when he drives it for 2hrs every other weekend pay more than someone with a brand new Prius that he uses everyday, and has just bought to replace his 2 yr old 'clean' (!) diesel?

[snorky]

so cars produce 20% of the worlds CO2 - why do we never hear about schemes to reduce the other bloody 80%....

[Drgp]

The Prius is an environmental nightmare. Fine, it has low CO2, but you try and recycle a vehicle that complex! F150 is much easier.

[Fire99]

This is a joke...(though not funny one)

It is easy to penalise mr Joe Public and put charges on them in the name of the environment cause Mr Joe's hands are tied and has no choice but to pay the money.
The big polluters are still industrial etc and they aren't penalised in this way as the Government know it could seriously affect the governments cashflow...

I heard the same about recycling.. Some boroughs fining people for not recycling and only collecting waste every other week etc.. and in the next sentence the person condoning this admitted that by far the biggest culprets filling up the land-fill sites were businesses in particular the construction industry...

Once again its using the sledge hammer to crack the nut...

Things need to change..

[Mr Croker]

So if you are parked making no emissions taking public transport to work you get penalised becasue you could make more emissions if you were driving?

How does this dove tail into Mayor Ken's policies?

Also while new cars may make less co2 emissions what about all the pollutants from the actual manufacure of the car? Plastics don't grow on trees do they...

Oh but we have "no" car manufacturing so it is not on UK soil. How enviromentally friendly!!

[zumbruk]

Drgp said:

The Prius is an environmental nightmare. Fine, it has low CO2, but you try and recycle a vehicle that complex! F150 is much easier.

I've started calling them the "Pious", after the "holier than thou" attitude of those who drive them.

(Not my idea, BTW).

[Rob_the_Sparky]

Stunningly you get hit even harder for a second car. Ever tried driving two cars at once?

[Chris944]

There's no environmentally-friendly, middle/upper class-bashing/anti motor-car/revenue-raising bandwagon that lunatic lefty/lib-dem councils won't jump on. They are blind to any form of behaviour modification that doesn't involve extra taxation.

Richmond council's business is to deliver services to its residents, not to penalise them and most effing certainly not to do with a pious, holier-than-thou attitude whilst actually just raising taxes on a part of the community 'that can easily afford it'.

FEA!

[adycav]

Absolutely ridiculous.

Hopefully I'll be six feet under before this is implemented nationwide.

[GreenV8S]

snorky said:

so cars produce 20% of the worlds CO2 - why do we never hear about schemes to reduce the other bloody 80%....

I think you're a couple of orders of magnitude out there, cars cause a miniscule proportion of total CO2 production and an even smaller proportion of total 'greenhouse gas' production. In any case the suggestion that mankind's CO2 production makes a significant difference to global warming (let alone "causes" it) is highly contentious; there seems to be more evidence against it than for it. However, it is supported with almost regious fervour by some people.

I believe that these anti-car measures allegedly for road safety reasons and now apparently to protect the environment, are actually being introduced for political reasons; some people think that private transport is immoral and should not be allowed. There seem to be some who think that industrialised life as a whole is immoral and we should all go back to living in mud huts.

[Chris944]

There's no escape. Grave plots and cremation time slots will in future cost more for owners of polluting and disgusting SUVs and sportscars.

[shadowninja]

Mr Croker said:

So if you are parked making no emissions taking public transport to work you get penalised becasue you could make more emissions if you were driving?

I thought this.

[TUS 373]

Idiots. If they are soooo concerned about CO2 in Richmond, they should ask everyone with a car to sponsor the purchase and planting of a tree. They use photosynthesis to convert CO2 back into 02. I think they will find this is a more effective solution to having a pile of cash....and still alot of CO2 floating about.

[victormeldrew]

This is just pure anti-car (and particluarly anti "posh" car) venom, dressed in a trendy "save-the-planet" message. It sucks.

It's being watched carefully? You bet, every left wing anti car public quango employee in the country it lining up to have a piece of the capitalist pigs.

We don't elect these people, once they get a inkling of power they breed jobs for the unwashed like rabbits, they impose their marxist social dogmas on the rest of us while hiding behind political correctness and their cute little "violonce against our employees will not be tolerated" signs. What about their assaults on the rights, and wallets, of people with proper jobs? Will they be tolerated?

Not much longer I suspect.

Feckers.

[victormeldrew]

Christ my p1iss is boiling!

[rpad]

Use to live in Richmond and I'm quite happy I've moved away - how ever I'm been collard by that other clown Mayor Ken as he has decided to extend the congestion charge out west, to the edge of Earls Court Road! Even tho he said the extension would only come into effect if he was re-elected!!

Looks like to only way to live in London is to be super rich and own a house with a drive and a garage, which many do on Queens Road so their Aston and Range Rover is exempt, rich stay rich - while normal folk bust their b*ll*x just to live!!!

[groomi]

I have an idea for another 'experiment' in Richmond. To counterbalance the current scheme, we should test what people reaction 'could' be. Everyone in Richmond will change their posh cars for 20 year old Sierras to avoid paying this additional tax.

Then sit back and watch the local economy react. House prices crash, restauraunts go out of business etc. etc....

But on the plus side, all those residents with negative equity will at least be able to sleep under a bush outside their old house and breath in nice clean, healthy air...

[sanguinary]

Richmond happens to be one of the wealthiest boroughs in the country. Does anybody think that the majority of drivers in the area will even notice having to pay out £300 or so in an extra tax.
The council I presume will have the same idea. It is just another way of getting some extra cash from the more weathier of the population.
Can any really see the London 'Fat Cats' selling their Range Rovers to buy a smart car????
People who buy so called Gas Guzzlers usually have the money to finance them.
All these taxes and regulations are getting annoying now.
Was looking about buying an RX7. May just buy a Smart car myself now!!! Or am I too missing the point!

[sato]

The answer to every problem seem to be to tax people. This monrning the government's big idea to stop binge drinking was to tax alcohol. its all PR, the government gets more money for themselves (i know this is the council, but as they have to fund any shortfall from the government themselves it amounts to the same thing). I wish they would have the balls just to put up income tax rather than dress it up in all this 'we care' rubbish.

If you did they really care they would stop building airport runways, get round to regulating air travel, and reducing polluting industry.

Edited by sato on Friday 27th October 12:03