Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Jun 04, 2026 23:50

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 07:45 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
On the BBC R4 news this morning, Richmond Council are thinking of introducing a graduated parking permit fee dependent on the amount of CO2 your vehicle emits.

The average 1600cc vehicle would pay 150% of the current fee, however, and this looks suspiciously like a new tax increasing scheme by the council dressed in environmental clothes. Second cars in a household would be subject to a 200% surcharge.

"Gas guzzling 4x4s" (funny how gas guzzling always precedes 4x4) are, of course mentioned. Did I mention that the council is LibDem?

Then there is Ken Livingstone who wants to raise the congestion charge many times on "4x4s" although how these congest the roads any more than a Mondeo estate is anyone's guess.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 07:57 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
How does a larger engined car put out more CO2 when it is parked up?

If they were that bothered about emissions they would provide more parking so people don't have to drive around endlessly looking for a parking spot. Or is that too logical?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 07:57 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
BBC News

Quote:
Parking fees linked to emissions

The cost of residents' parking permits could be linked to the emissions their car produces, under plans from one London borough council.
The Liberal Democrat council in Richmond, south-west London, hopes to make owners of gas-guzzling vehicles pay more to park outside their homes.

The owner of two high-emission cars could pay £750 a year for parking, compared with the £200 they pay now.

But it would cost nothing to park environmentally friendly cars.

The BBC's environment correspondent Roger Harrabin said the new council was keen to reduce emissions.

"Leafy Richmond is one of Britain's most affluent boroughs.

"Its homes are among the highest producers in Britain of the greenhouse gas CO2.

"The new Liberal Democrat council is trying to put a stop to that."

Higher congestion charge

If the plans are approved, the cost of parking the most polluting vehicles would rise from £100 to £300.

Those with more than one car would have to pay 50% more for extra permits - thus a household owning two high-emissions cars could pay £300 for the first, and £450 for the second, or £750 in total.

We're very hopeful that other councils will follow suit. We are the first in the country to implement a change such as this.

David Trigg, Richmond councillor

Councillor David Trigg, Richmond Council cabinet member for traffic, transport and parking, said he hoped the initiative would be widely copied.

"Rather than being just a space-orientated exercise, we are now targeting higher-emission vehicles for a higher charge.

"We're very hopeful that other councils will follow suit. We are the first in the country to implement a change such as this, and we would certainly hope that others do."

Tony Bosworth, from Friends of the Earth, said the proposal was a "step in the right direction", but called on the government to increase road tax on gas-guzzlers.

"Encouraging people to buy fuel-efficient cars is a big part of the answer to climate change... but the real power here lies with the chancellor," he said.

But Mike Rutherford from the Motorists' Association pointed out that the measure would also affect families with larger saloon cars.

He said the Richmond plan was a "money-making exercise" but acknowledged it may slowly help encourage people to buy different vehicles.

Anyone trying to drive a high-emissions vehicle from Richmond into central London may also face an additional cost for the city's congestion charge.

In July, it emerged that the charge for drivers of such cars could rise to £25 - three times the current charge.

London Mayor Ken Livingstone has said he wants a sliding scale, with lower charges for low-emission vehicles and higher charges for some urban 4x4 vehicles, dubbed "Chelsea tractors".

Mr Livingstone said if his plans got wider backing, discounts could be in place by 2008, and higher charges by 2010.

National policies

Delegates at the Lib Dem conference in September approved plans to use new taxes on gas-guzzling cars and aviation to pay for income tax cuts.

Sir Menzies said he wanted to focus on "taxing pollution, not people".

The Tory leader David Cameron has also said he would offer incentives for green car use.

And in the Budget, Chancellor Gordon Brown raised road taxes for the most polluting vehicles, with the worst offenders now attracting a vehicle excise duty of £210.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 08:04 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
I suggest they read the report on the ABD's website which is about dust to dust calculations on cars. The hummer does better than the prius for a start. A lot of the 4x4s are moderately friendly and are at least equal to many traditional estate cars so it is all about hammering whoever is today's bete noir.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 08:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Another dodgy policy proposal based on a dodgy data.

First they came for the 4x4s...

In this excessively PC world, how come they are allowed to incite hatred in this way? Inciting hatred is far worse than any vehicle choice!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 08:30 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
How about starting a new religion which has driving safely, including above the speed limit and worships 4 x 4s? They wouldn't be able to criticise as it would go against their own religious intolerance bill :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 08:30 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
According to BBC Breakfast, the council wanted to stress it wasn't about revenue-raising... so here's a suggestion for them - whatever increase in revenue is generated by this scheme should then be offset by a reduction of everyone's council tax. If they want us to believe it's not about the money, do something to make us believe it, because we sure as hell aren't about to believe mere words. Especially not ones spoken by anyone even remotely linked to government...

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 09:10 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
teabelly wrote:
How about starting a new religion which has driving safely, including above the speed limit and worships 4 x 4s? They wouldn't be able to criticise as it would go against their own religious intolerance bill :D


You've heard of the hari krishnas, now we have the Safespeedites!

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 09:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:35
Posts: 643
Location: South Wales
Twister wrote:
According to BBC Breakfast, the council wanted to stress it wasn't about revenue-raising... so here's a suggestion for them - whatever increase in revenue is generated by this scheme should then be offset by a reduction of everyone's council tax. If they want us to believe it's not about the money, do something to make us believe it, because we sure as hell aren't about to believe mere words. Especially not ones spoken by anyone
even remotely linked to government...


Ah, Twister you forget "Administrative Costs" you know like the scammers use to weasel away millions each year running a few cameras.

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 09:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 16:30
Posts: 57
Location: Swindon
what is interesting is that they have selected a "wealthy" borough to implement this scheme in, if those people can afford to have big Mercs, BMWs and 4x4s sitting around they certainly arent going to worry about paying a "little" increase to park them....now if they tried that in an "underprivileged" area I doubt that this would get through very quickly at all.

Another stealth tax funded by your hard working Motorist. If I gave up my car I would £1000's better off....oh, and be on the dole as I use my car to commute to work!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
It's been said before in here and I'll say it again. Environmentalism is the new communism/neo socialism.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:10 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
They just don't understand basic principles of psychology like risk justification. If they make people pay thousands a year for their car, then people will use their cars as much as possible so they don't feel so ripped off.

If they really wanted to reduce car use, they would move all the tax to fuel and abolish yearly standing charges. Then it might be possible for people to leave their cars at home and use public transport sometimes.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:23 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
One would have thought that if they were really interested in the polution aspect they'd make it cheaper to park a "gas guzzler" in order to encourage the owners thereof to leave them stationary for longer and thus put out less polution.. :-)

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 15:26 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
Hey guys its the Lib Dems...the bandwagon party :lol:

Of course a possible side effect is not to have a parking permit and park outside someone elses house like they do in Derby. That way you upset your neighbours and use up more fuel as well........nice one.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 16:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 15:52
Posts: 15
Location: Reading, Berks
I'm surprised that Richmond's apparently not bothered by the noise and pollution that rains down on them from aircraft arriving and leaving Heathrow.

But then motorists have always been an easy target.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 21:29 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
teabelly wrote:
How about starting a new religion which has driving safely, including above the speed limit and worships 4 x 4s? They wouldn't be able to criticise as it would go against their own religious intolerance bill :D


Isn't this just an offshoot of the "Cargo" religion? :lol:
It's bona fide, and suits your requirements! Instead of waiting for the baubles to be delivered, this branch of the religion prefers to hop in the 4x4 and nip down to Tesco or Sainsburys and pick them up! :D

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 21:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 00:54
Posts: 327
Location: Rural Somerset
r11co wrote:
It's been said before in here and I'll say it again. Environmentalism is the new communism/neo socialism.


Absolutely right. These people target 4x4s not because of what they are (many other vehicles are far less environmentaly-friendly) but because of the stereotypical idea these lefties have of the people who drive them.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 22:12 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
The sad thing is that this measure will further disadvantage those who can least afford it. Those who have larger houses, with their own drives, don't need a parking permit because they can park on their own land rather than on-street. I assume that such people are the target for Richmond's "conspicuous affluence tax", yet they will not be affected in the slightest. The people most affected will be those living in terraces and council estates that don't have off-street parking. Many such people have older cars with larger engines because they tend to be cheap to buy, reliable and, if you don't do a lot of miles, have acceptable running costs.

These "fixed-cost" taxes have no relationship to the actual pollution caused and if environmental concerns are paramount, should be abandoned immediately. If environmental tax is to be levied, it should tax the actual pollution - e.g. the amount of carbon actually released, which is proportional to the amount of fuel used.

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 23:23 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 22:31
Posts: 407
Location: A Safe Distance From Others
Quote:
Absolutely right. These people target 4x4s not because of what they are (many other vehicles are far less environmentaly-friendly) but because of the stereotypical idea these lefties have of the people who drive them.


Too right!

Target the driver, not the car!

I'm sure the Audi Q7 is a very accomplished car, however it is likely to be driven by the moby-talking / hair-adjusting / mascara-applying / ball-scratching / sandwich-eating / I've got a bigger car than you driver.

_________________
Simon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 00:03 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 00:51
Posts: 160
no worries as it's Illegal anyway accordint to some road traffic act or other
I have an AK47 off ebay can I make it work for you?

_________________
Welcome to the UK, the Land of "Selective Freedoms"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.047s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]