Now the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s are after you!
Discussion
Note the "for 4x4s and other high-emission vehicles"
Environment and transport campaigners have called on Transport for London to raise the city’s congestion charge to £20 for 4x4s and other high-emission vehicles, in a bid to keep up the good work achieved by the scheme so far. Members of Greenpeace and the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s took to the streets to carry out their protest, hanging a banner across Marylebone High Street.
Currently, private vehicle owners are charged £5 to enter the central congestion charge zone.
"Vehicle owners must take full responsibility for the choices they make. If they insist on buying an urban four-wheel drive, they need to pay more for that choice, and a £20 congestion charge would do that,” said Sian Berry of the Alliance. “The increasing use of big 4x4s in London threatens to undo all the good that the congestion charge has done in reducing traffic and improving our air quality and quality of life. The children being ferried around in these monsters today will have to pay for the effects of climate change tomorrow."
The call comes after fellow green group Friends of the Earth’s demand that high-emission / low MPG vehicles should face a stricter level of road tax, and the existing tax bands should be revised to incentivise greener purchases,
Mark Strutt of Greenpeace added; "Most of these 4x4s have seen less off-road action than the average milk float, but the CO2 they throw into the atmosphere is contributing to the gravest threat this planet faces.”
Environment and transport campaigners have called on Transport for London to raise the city’s congestion charge to £20 for 4x4s and other high-emission vehicles, in a bid to keep up the good work achieved by the scheme so far. Members of Greenpeace and the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s took to the streets to carry out their protest, hanging a banner across Marylebone High Street.
Currently, private vehicle owners are charged £5 to enter the central congestion charge zone.
"Vehicle owners must take full responsibility for the choices they make. If they insist on buying an urban four-wheel drive, they need to pay more for that choice, and a £20 congestion charge would do that,” said Sian Berry of the Alliance. “The increasing use of big 4x4s in London threatens to undo all the good that the congestion charge has done in reducing traffic and improving our air quality and quality of life. The children being ferried around in these monsters today will have to pay for the effects of climate change tomorrow."
The call comes after fellow green group Friends of the Earth’s demand that high-emission / low MPG vehicles should face a stricter level of road tax, and the existing tax bands should be revised to incentivise greener purchases,
Mark Strutt of Greenpeace added; "Most of these 4x4s have seen less off-road action than the average milk float, but the CO2 they throw into the atmosphere is contributing to the gravest threat this planet faces.”
today its hard to post in defense of 4x4 due to the c**t that keeps parking right on the corner of the road in his making it nearly impossible to get my car into my road. All it would take is to move it a small distance to the left but nooooooo....
That aside, wonder once tehy win this little victory they start going for anything over 2.0l, then 1.4l, then 998cc, then motorcycles then eventually cyclists because of the fart emmisions that they may give off. B
ks to it, lets ban people as walking may kill off rare spores underneath their feet... 
That aside, wonder once tehy win this little victory they start going for anything over 2.0l, then 1.4l, then 998cc, then motorcycles then eventually cyclists because of the fart emmisions that they may give off. B
ks to it, lets ban people as walking may kill off rare spores underneath their feet... I can't see the point of these soft-roaders but anything that reduces peoples reasonable freedom of choice is not a good thing.
The fact that these large vehicles pay more tax on fuel due to their poorer fuel economy seems to be lost on the TfL clowns.
And they don't take up THAT much more room than a Euro hatchback so they will make no impact on the length of queues in the city.
The fact that these large vehicles pay more tax on fuel due to their poorer fuel economy seems to be lost on the TfL clowns.
And they don't take up THAT much more room than a Euro hatchback so they will make no impact on the length of queues in the city.
gh0st said:
That aside, wonder once tehy win this little victory they start going for anything over 2.0l, then 1.4l, then 998cc, then motorcycles then eventually cyclists because of the fart emmisions that they may give off. B
Actually people walking around also create a lot of C02, so walking is not good for the environment either!
cortinaman said:
[sarchasticmode] OH BOO-HOO-HOO-HOO-HOO! [sarchasticmodeoff]
why dont these dickheads just build a cross each and get someone to nail them to it?
>> Edited by cortinaman on Monday 7th March 05:50
seconded, if they need any nails I have plenty I would be happy to donate, along with a hammer and a bit of time to help with the
They should forget the 'profile' of the vehicle alone and just focus on emmissions and pollution. It is clearly not about saving the planet if they are going to target a vehicle merely because it 'looks' big & posh, this campaign is riddled with the old world socialist politics of envy. A particular 4x4 may have lower emmissions than a particular mid sized car, yet they will blindly target the 4x4. How many of those who are putting faux tickets on 4x4s are carrying around an emmissions chart to check up how dirty it is? Too many assumptions are being made.
What we need to do is come up with a true 'pollution' index, that takes into account how much pollution a vehicle creates in the course of being driven, but also how much pollution was caused in the course of its actual manufacture too. This then needs to be cross referenced with how many years the vehicle is kept by the owner and how many miles it covers, so you end up with a true index of how dirty the vehicle is, given its ownership profile too.
For example, car 'A' may have a high pollution index, much higher than say car 'B'. However, if car 'A' is kept for six years, it could be argued that overall it is cleaner than car 'B' when car 'B' is replaced by another car 'B' at three years old, assuming similar mileage covered. All sorts of factors have to be taken into consideration. I reckon continuing to run a 15 year old Range Rover for example, even a really badly maintained and tuned one, that chucks all sort of nasty shite out of its tailpipe, is still cleaner and greener than replacing it with a brand new small environmentally freindly car with lower emmissions, because the manufacture of the replacement causes more pollution than the old one ever could even if it ran for a hundred years.
What we need to do is come up with a true 'pollution' index, that takes into account how much pollution a vehicle creates in the course of being driven, but also how much pollution was caused in the course of its actual manufacture too. This then needs to be cross referenced with how many years the vehicle is kept by the owner and how many miles it covers, so you end up with a true index of how dirty the vehicle is, given its ownership profile too.
For example, car 'A' may have a high pollution index, much higher than say car 'B'. However, if car 'A' is kept for six years, it could be argued that overall it is cleaner than car 'B' when car 'B' is replaced by another car 'B' at three years old, assuming similar mileage covered. All sorts of factors have to be taken into consideration. I reckon continuing to run a 15 year old Range Rover for example, even a really badly maintained and tuned one, that chucks all sort of nasty shite out of its tailpipe, is still cleaner and greener than replacing it with a brand new small environmentally freindly car with lower emmissions, because the manufacture of the replacement causes more pollution than the old one ever could even if it ran for a hundred years.
If it's a 'congestion charge' maybe they should charge per foot of vehice length...
Anyway, motorists don't tell greenies how to grow lentils; I wonder why they have to preach to us?
Ah yes, because they're over-educated busybodies harbouring congenital guilt who like to project it onto the normal people around them, generally making their lives as miserable as their own.
Anyway, motorists don't tell greenies how to grow lentils; I wonder why they have to preach to us?
Ah yes, because they're over-educated busybodies harbouring congenital guilt who like to project it onto the normal people around them, generally making their lives as miserable as their own.
What about london cabs/large oil burning vans/lorries etc am i right in thinking that these all pay the same ccharge?
I'd be pretty sure that all 3 chuck out far more noxious fumes/chemicals than a newer so-called 'posh' 4*4?
Agree with Balmoral. Pollution 'index' would be a far greater/fairer system.
I'd be pretty sure that all 3 chuck out far more noxious fumes/chemicals than a newer so-called 'posh' 4*4?
Agree with Balmoral. Pollution 'index' would be a far greater/fairer system.
cinque said:
What about london cabs/large oil burning vans/lorries etc am i right in thinking that these all pay the same ccharge?
I'd be pretty sure that all 3 chuck out far more noxious fumes/chemicals than a newer so-called 'posh' 4*4?
Agree with Balmoral. Pollution 'index' would be a far greater/fairer system.
But as busses are the biggest polluters they might have a job arguing this on environmental grounds.
When is this bunch of pillocks going to realise that attacking 4x4s from an environmental point of view is just a load of bovine faeces? Like anything with a big engine (not that all 4x4s have big engines), the owners pay for the increased consumption through the heavy fuel tax, so they're already penalised.
If they attacked urban 4x4s from the safety point of view I'd be more sympathetic as it's the only argument that holds water, but that's a bone of contention that's already been well and truely gnawed on PH.
Idiots.
If they attacked urban 4x4s from the safety point of view I'd be more sympathetic as it's the only argument that holds water, but that's a bone of contention that's already been well and truely gnawed on PH.
Idiots.
nel said:
When is this bunch of pillocks going to realise that attacking 4x4s from an environmental point of view is just a load of bovine faeces? Like anything with a big engine (not that all 4x4s have big engines), the owners pay for the increased consumption through the heavy fuel tax, so they're already penalised.
If they attacked urban 4x4s from the safety point of view I'd be more sympathetic as it's the only argument that holds water, but that's a bone of contention that's already been well and truely gnawed on PH.
Idiots.
I believe some 4X4 are safer to pedestrians than many saloons-because there is not so much danger of the head impacting on the engine.
JagLover said:
I believe some 4X4 are safer to pedestrians than many saloons-because there is not so much danger of the head impacting on the engine.
Dubious in my opinion, but in any case my major issue is more related to collisions with other vehicles. I don't see why everyone in a normal car should have to be exposed to greater risk because other urban drivers choose to drive tanks. Subject has been done to death on here already. I'll probably end up burnt on a stake as a PH heretic....
Hi everyone,
I just want to contribute towards an intelligent debate on this matter rather than nailing people to crosses. I mean how mature eh.. If you want to voice something on the matter at least have all the FACTS in front of you.
I live in London where I am surrounded by 4x4s on a day to day basis, whilst I may not know all of Ken Livingstone's argument, I know where I stand and why I feel that way on this matter.
Here are the FACTS:
1. Their sheer size as private transport makes manouevarability in town restrictive, and uneccesarily obstructive to fellow road users - where space is at a premium and congestion much more intensely an issue.
2. Because SUVs are generally heavier than conventional cars, they need bigger engines, which produces more carbon dioxide. for example, a Land Rover 4.4 V8 emits 389 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre travelled - more than twice that of a Saab 93 1.8i. Chrysler-Jeep's Grand Cherokee produces 370g/km travelled - a PT Cruiser, from the same manufacturer, just 212.
3. Yes an old Routemaster bus might kick out more toxins, but it is transporting more than one mum and her son to school! It isnt being selfish like the 4x4 driver is.
4. Fossil fuel is not infinate. There will come a point where we run out. These gas guzzlers are speeding up the finate and depleting stocks.
5. Ok, so you dont give a t0ss about the planet and your argument is for safety.. well, lets talk about safety then shall we? For all crashes between cars and SUVs, people in cars are about FOUR TIMES more likely to die than people inside the SUVs.
When SUVs strike cars in the side, the risk of death for car occupants relative to the risk of SUV occupants dying is 27 to 1.
5. Research in the United States has shown that a pedestrian struck by a 4x4 is more than TWICE as likely to die as someone hit by a saloon car travelling at the same speed, according to America’s Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
In Britain the alliance quotes figures from Churchill Insurance that show 4x4s are 25% more likely to be involved in crashes than ordinary family cars.
Make up your own mind on the matter, but with the above facts, I don't know what positive arguments there are for 4x4's other than looking bling and showing off...?
oh and by the way if you drive a 4x4, here is a reminder when you sit aloft in the clouds:
BIG DOES NOT EQUAL RIGHT OF WAY.
I just want to contribute towards an intelligent debate on this matter rather than nailing people to crosses. I mean how mature eh.. If you want to voice something on the matter at least have all the FACTS in front of you.
I live in London where I am surrounded by 4x4s on a day to day basis, whilst I may not know all of Ken Livingstone's argument, I know where I stand and why I feel that way on this matter.
Here are the FACTS:
1. Their sheer size as private transport makes manouevarability in town restrictive, and uneccesarily obstructive to fellow road users - where space is at a premium and congestion much more intensely an issue.
2. Because SUVs are generally heavier than conventional cars, they need bigger engines, which produces more carbon dioxide. for example, a Land Rover 4.4 V8 emits 389 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre travelled - more than twice that of a Saab 93 1.8i. Chrysler-Jeep's Grand Cherokee produces 370g/km travelled - a PT Cruiser, from the same manufacturer, just 212.
3. Yes an old Routemaster bus might kick out more toxins, but it is transporting more than one mum and her son to school! It isnt being selfish like the 4x4 driver is.
4. Fossil fuel is not infinate. There will come a point where we run out. These gas guzzlers are speeding up the finate and depleting stocks.
5. Ok, so you dont give a t0ss about the planet and your argument is for safety.. well, lets talk about safety then shall we? For all crashes between cars and SUVs, people in cars are about FOUR TIMES more likely to die than people inside the SUVs.
When SUVs strike cars in the side, the risk of death for car occupants relative to the risk of SUV occupants dying is 27 to 1.
5. Research in the United States has shown that a pedestrian struck by a 4x4 is more than TWICE as likely to die as someone hit by a saloon car travelling at the same speed, according to America’s Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
In Britain the alliance quotes figures from Churchill Insurance that show 4x4s are 25% more likely to be involved in crashes than ordinary family cars.
Make up your own mind on the matter, but with the above facts, I don't know what positive arguments there are for 4x4's other than looking bling and showing off...?
oh and by the way if you drive a 4x4, here is a reminder when you sit aloft in the clouds:
BIG DOES NOT EQUAL RIGHT OF WAY.
I don't understand the fixation with carbon dioxide emissions.
Plants "breathe in" carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Carbon dioxide occurs naturally in very large quantities, and we'd all look a bit silly without it. Carbon Monoxide is harmful. Benzene and diesel particulates cause cancer.
I look at urban 4x4s in much the same way as I look at fox hunting. Don't like them myself, would never buy one, but deplore trendy lefties who believe themselves to be empowered to ban anything that doesn't fit perfectly with their fluffy socialist ideals.
Plants "breathe in" carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Carbon dioxide occurs naturally in very large quantities, and we'd all look a bit silly without it. Carbon Monoxide is harmful. Benzene and diesel particulates cause cancer.
I look at urban 4x4s in much the same way as I look at fox hunting. Don't like them myself, would never buy one, but deplore trendy lefties who believe themselves to be empowered to ban anything that doesn't fit perfectly with their fluffy socialist ideals.
You haven't addressed the fact that larger engined cars pay more in fuel duty than their smaller counterparts.
So why should they also suffer an increased congestion charge? The congestion charge exists to reduce the amount of traffic in the city, does it not? If thats the case, why aren't you targetting physically large vehicles, instead of a particular class of vehicle?
So why should they also suffer an increased congestion charge? The congestion charge exists to reduce the amount of traffic in the city, does it not? If thats the case, why aren't you targetting physically large vehicles, instead of a particular class of vehicle?
fabstervroom said:
Make up your own mind on the matter, but with the above facts, I don't know what positive arguments there are for 4x4's other than looking bling and showing off...?
I don't drive a 4X4 but a positive argument in favour of them-here goes
You won't shake your car apart going over speed humps.
There are some truly diabolical speed humps in London.
I try and avoid the worst of them-but the feeling of your beloved car going over them is not nice.
It is why in my opinion they only either make sense as a car for the country or as a city car. In both instances you face terrain to which they are best suited.
There are a lot of vehicles I can't see the point of, but that's just because I am able to make a free choice (at the moment).
But, because I'm not an interfering, narrow-minded social engineeer, I don't give a damn what other people drive.
If you drive a car that uses more fuel, you are already paying more for it. To have separate higher road charges just because of a personal choice made smacks of typical Labouresque politics of envy.
If fuel is going to run out, what difference does it make to CO2 emission if it runs out a few years earlier? It'll all get used up eventually, even if we all drive Micras.
...and private motor vehicles are not such bad polluters, it's public transport and industry that needs to clean up its act.
Reject the divide and rule tactics!
But, because I'm not an interfering, narrow-minded social engineeer, I don't give a damn what other people drive.
If you drive a car that uses more fuel, you are already paying more for it. To have separate higher road charges just because of a personal choice made smacks of typical Labouresque politics of envy.
If fuel is going to run out, what difference does it make to CO2 emission if it runs out a few years earlier? It'll all get used up eventually, even if we all drive Micras.
...and private motor vehicles are not such bad polluters, it's public transport and industry that needs to clean up its act.
Reject the divide and rule tactics!
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff