8 out of 10 Londoners hate 4x4's
Discussion
Who's buying them then? 
Poll results no surprise as the poll done by Greenpeace, backed by the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s and doubtless by Livingstone
www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/17090465?version=1
Huge backing for 4x4 C-charge rise
By Mark Prigg Science Correspondent, Evening Standard
7 March 2005
More than eight out of 10 Londoners are in favour of a higher congestion charge for four-by-four vehicles, a report claims today.
The poll of more than 5,000 people - questioned at random at Tube stations - strengthens calls to penalise drivers of the most environmentally unsound cars.
Greenpeace, which carried out the survey, backs a charge of £20 to be introduced for vehicles which do fewer than 25 miles per gallon or emit more than 250g of carbon dioxide per kilometre.
That would include popular makes like the Land Rover Discovery and the new Range Rover Sport. "We want the charge raised to £20 for four-by-fours and other high-emission vehicles to reflect the damage they do to the environment," said a Greenpeace spokesman.
The poll was also backed by the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s, which last year launched a controversial campaign issuing fake parking tickets on all-wheel drive vehicles and picketing school runs - the so-called Chelsea tractors are a popular choice with mothers.
However, Keith Lewis of the Society-of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, hit back at the latest calls.
He said: "Four-by-four vehicles make up just 3.5 per cent of London vehicles, and are not the worst in terms of emissions. People have a right to choose what type of vehicle they want, and if they want a four-by-four, they should be allowed that."
Earlier this year Ken Livingstone was forced to abandon plans to double the £5 congestion charge for drivers of off-road vehicles, when he was told by TfL that it was "impractical". In the past, the Mayor has called four-by-four drivers "complete idiots".
Poll results no surprise as the poll done by Greenpeace, backed by the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s and doubtless by Livingstone
www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/17090465?version=1
Huge backing for 4x4 C-charge rise
By Mark Prigg Science Correspondent, Evening Standard
7 March 2005
More than eight out of 10 Londoners are in favour of a higher congestion charge for four-by-four vehicles, a report claims today.
The poll of more than 5,000 people - questioned at random at Tube stations - strengthens calls to penalise drivers of the most environmentally unsound cars.
Greenpeace, which carried out the survey, backs a charge of £20 to be introduced for vehicles which do fewer than 25 miles per gallon or emit more than 250g of carbon dioxide per kilometre.
That would include popular makes like the Land Rover Discovery and the new Range Rover Sport. "We want the charge raised to £20 for four-by-fours and other high-emission vehicles to reflect the damage they do to the environment," said a Greenpeace spokesman.
The poll was also backed by the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s, which last year launched a controversial campaign issuing fake parking tickets on all-wheel drive vehicles and picketing school runs - the so-called Chelsea tractors are a popular choice with mothers.
However, Keith Lewis of the Society-of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, hit back at the latest calls.
He said: "Four-by-four vehicles make up just 3.5 per cent of London vehicles, and are not the worst in terms of emissions. People have a right to choose what type of vehicle they want, and if they want a four-by-four, they should be allowed that."
Earlier this year Ken Livingstone was forced to abandon plans to double the £5 congestion charge for drivers of off-road vehicles, when he was told by TfL that it was "impractical". In the past, the Mayor has called four-by-four drivers "complete idiots".
I live in London. I travel to work by public transport (not the Tube anymore, DLR now). I drive a car that does not do more than 25 mpg (at least when I'm driving it). As I more or less never pay the CC I don't really care what they do with it, but I think that the current black cabs are probably a much more worthy vehicle to target than 4x4s. There are thousands and thousands of them. They drive around all day. They are amazingly inefficient and pump out tons of soot. They don't pay ANY CC!
Typical. 8 out of 10 'ordinary' Londoners probably don't give a damn.
Personally I don't like 4x4 but only cos I can't see past them when in the Caterham.
4x4 slagged now.
Next it will be sports cars.
Eventually we'll all be wearing boilersuits whilst pedalling along on our government issue bicycles.
Personally I don't like 4x4 but only cos I can't see past them when in the Caterham.
4x4 slagged now.
Next it will be sports cars.
Eventually we'll all be wearing boilersuits whilst pedalling along on our government issue bicycles.
catso said:
Greenpeace, which carried out the survey, backs a charge of £20 to be introduced for vehicles which do fewer than 25 miles per gallon or emit more than 250g of carbon dioxide per kilometre.
So, if a poll worker jumped in front of you while you were in a hurry (to or from the tube) and asked you two point blank, yes or no questions like:
Should vehicles that use signifigantly more, or grossly more petrol be controled through financial pressure?
Should vehicles that polute signifigantly more pay more tax?
What would any normal, hurried, uninvolved person say?
Polls are meaningless unless you know the audience AND the exact questions asked of them.
catso said:
Greenpeace, which carried out the survey, backs a charge of £20 to be introduced for vehicles which do fewer than 25 miles per gallon or emit more than 250g of carbon dioxide per kilometre.
that's not the same as "4wd vehicles" is it?
and how you decide which vehicle does less than 25mpg? lots of big engined vehicles, when driven carefully, could beat that, and equally, lots of small engined vehicles, when thrashed, would struggle
a load of crap. how about REDUCING tax on 'efficient vehicles' then?
hugoagogo said:
that's not the same as "4wd vehicles" is it?
and how you decide which vehicle does less than 25mpg? lots of big engined vehicles, when driven carefully, could beat that, and equally, lots of small engined vehicles, when thrashed, would struggle
a load of crap. how about REDUCING tax on 'efficient vehicles' then?
I would have thought that most 2Litre plus Cars would do less than 25mpg in busy City (London) driving , I know both of mine would, in fact my A3 only does about 25mpg average (and it's 4wd) and my wifes 'People Carrier' only does marginally better - and i could probably get my bike to do 25mpg if I really thrashed it (would hardly be city friendly though
) - but surely vehicles with low mpg are paying more tax anyway. 
Well!............Let's get the 4x4 bashing over with first....... I don't personally like 4x4's for myself, I have no need of them, ploughed fields hold no lure for me and they are too slow and unstable at high speed for my liking. Even for towing caravans which has become the style of late I maintain that they're the wrong vehicle for the job and many longer wheelbase cars are more stable at speed.
In an urban envirionment, with it's inerrant restrictions, I can't honestly follow the logic, but there you go, each to his own, it's you that needs to find a parking space!
I will say one last thing though (on the bashing thread)
a few of my friends have 4x4's, and when I have first talked to them about them, it's not very long before the statement: "In an accident I'll be OK" comes into the conversation. In my view, that says it all, "F you I'll be OK! That's why I bought it. When the wife takes the lil' kiddywinks to school they'll be OK".
OK! Relax all, bashing over, for some folks obviously a 4x4 makes sense. Depending on where they live, their needs, whether it is their only vehicle, Etc, Etc, Etc.
I DON'T agree with taxing private vehicles of ANY type/size differently, or, of charging more congestion charge for them.
The space that most of them take up is no more than mine, a XJ8 Jaguar. We pay 3/4 of what we pay for fuel in tax, therefore, the less mpg we get, the more we pay (this complies with the Thatcherite "the polluter must pay" principle). Why add to it?
Road tax should be scrapped! To enable more people to own a smaller "city" car!!! The choice of vehicle, hence level of tax, is then up to you, is it not? run a smaller car for the city? I would. You'll get there cheaper, quicker, easier to park, and at an average of 2 feet shorter, that means 2000 feet more space per 1000 cars!
Sorry folks, but I can see where they're coming from. Don't force them into more totalitarian measures!
This is what I see in Germany, and why the "smart car" was born. Pity we had one first, it's gone now though, the "reliant" kitten?
>> Edited by 8Pack on Tuesday 8th March 03:17
In an urban envirionment, with it's inerrant restrictions, I can't honestly follow the logic, but there you go, each to his own, it's you that needs to find a parking space!
I will say one last thing though (on the bashing thread)
a few of my friends have 4x4's, and when I have first talked to them about them, it's not very long before the statement: "In an accident I'll be OK" comes into the conversation. In my view, that says it all, "F you I'll be OK! That's why I bought it. When the wife takes the lil' kiddywinks to school they'll be OK".
OK! Relax all, bashing over, for some folks obviously a 4x4 makes sense. Depending on where they live, their needs, whether it is their only vehicle, Etc, Etc, Etc.
I DON'T agree with taxing private vehicles of ANY type/size differently, or, of charging more congestion charge for them.
The space that most of them take up is no more than mine, a XJ8 Jaguar. We pay 3/4 of what we pay for fuel in tax, therefore, the less mpg we get, the more we pay (this complies with the Thatcherite "the polluter must pay" principle). Why add to it?
Road tax should be scrapped! To enable more people to own a smaller "city" car!!! The choice of vehicle, hence level of tax, is then up to you, is it not? run a smaller car for the city? I would. You'll get there cheaper, quicker, easier to park, and at an average of 2 feet shorter, that means 2000 feet more space per 1000 cars!
Sorry folks, but I can see where they're coming from. Don't force them into more totalitarian measures!
This is what I see in Germany, and why the "smart car" was born. Pity we had one first, it's gone now though, the "reliant" kitten?
>> Edited by 8Pack on Tuesday 8th March 03:17
Absoloutely sick and tired of the stupid fools who keep going on and on about this.
Why ban 4x4's, why not sports cars, supercars, or motorbikes. In all honesty they have less uses than a 4wd.
Because some narrow minded opionated clowns don't like them, has absoloutely no bearing on anything atall, let alone the banning of them.
I have a defender 90 td5 as my everyday car. It is used off road a lot, for very heavy towing, and for going to work. So what that it only does about 24mpg, I am paying the extra tax on the fuel. Thats my choice.
As a side point, last October I was hit by a golf doing 45mph that hit me straight in the drivers door when he lost control on a bend. The land Rover was written off ( I bought it back and repaired it ) but I was basically unhurt, which was suprising, when you saw how much damage had been done at the time.
Why do people think they have the right to tell someone else what they should drive (or do for that matter.).... Theyve banned hunting, whats next.
If I ever met one of those fake parking ticket numpties they would be in trouble............
In London, taxis should be the first port of call...
Thats set me up for a constructive day at work!
[RANTOFF]
Why ban 4x4's, why not sports cars, supercars, or motorbikes. In all honesty they have less uses than a 4wd.
Because some narrow minded opionated clowns don't like them, has absoloutely no bearing on anything atall, let alone the banning of them.
I have a defender 90 td5 as my everyday car. It is used off road a lot, for very heavy towing, and for going to work. So what that it only does about 24mpg, I am paying the extra tax on the fuel. Thats my choice.
As a side point, last October I was hit by a golf doing 45mph that hit me straight in the drivers door when he lost control on a bend. The land Rover was written off ( I bought it back and repaired it ) but I was basically unhurt, which was suprising, when you saw how much damage had been done at the time.
Why do people think they have the right to tell someone else what they should drive (or do for that matter.).... Theyve banned hunting, whats next.
If I ever met one of those fake parking ticket numpties they would be in trouble............
In London, taxis should be the first port of call...
Thats set me up for a constructive day at work!
[RANTOFF]
The Mayor of London and those campaigning against 4x4s doubtless live in houses, some quite big, taking up a lot of space. Buildings emit about twice as much carbon dioxide as all vehicles. The Mayor of London, and the Alliance nutters, and all their families, should be made to pay 4 times as much Council tax as the rest of us to demonstrate how serious they are about the carbon dioxide thing, and their personal unwavering commitment to the cause. And if somebody doesn't like their houses - design, use, decoration etc - then fake eviction notices should be served.
Tw@ts
Tw@ts
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff