Looks like they have been busy with the cut-and paste without thinking about what they are saying. Sounds par for the course.
SMMT slams London Assembly Liberal Democrats' list of 'anti-SUV stereotypes'
The SMMT today criticised the London Assembly Liberal Democrats for producing a list of vehicles which their policy document says should incur double the London congestion charge for drivers. The list of 4x4s/SUVs, including 16 not currently sold in the UK, is based, says the SMMT, on a “well-trodden path of anti-SUV stereotypes, misinformation and out-of-date American safety research”.
SMMT chief executive Christopher Macgowan commented, “The London Assembly Liberal Democrats suggest that a "one size fits all" approach to the London congestion charge is flawed. Why then have they chosen to apply the same approach - the one size fits all 4x4 label - to produce a list of cars which they claim should pay double to drive in central London? It makes no sense at all.”
On the London Assembly Liberal Democrats’ claim that SUVs are a danger to pedestrians, the SMMT says, “The British-built Honda CR-V is one of only a handful of cars to have gained three stars in independent NCAP crash tests for pedestrian protection. This is a better performance than 19 out of 21 supermini models tested by the safety body since 2002. So, why is the CR-V included in the Liberal Democrats' list?”
On claims that SUVs take up more road space and cause congestion, the SMMT notes
the three best-selling 4x4/SUVs in the UK, Land Rover Freelander, Toyota RAV 4 and Honda CR-V, are all shorter than a Mondeo or Vectra, and asks how they can then be more responsible than larger cars for congestion.
Responding to the claim that SUVs emit four times more CO2 at the tailpipe, the SMMT says, “This is nonsense. The average luxury saloon emits 286 g/km, 4x4 / SUVs emit 244 g/km and sports cars 232 g/km. Carbon dioxide emissions from 4x4/SUVs have also fallen by 14.6 per cent since 1997, more than the 9.7 per cent average for all new cars sold in the UK.”
Finally, on the alleged propensity of SUVs to cause more damage than any other type of car, the SMMT responds that out-of-date US research has been used to justify the claim that UK-sold SUVs in 2005 are inherently dangerous. The truth is that the vast majority are smaller car-derived vehicles, compared to larger truck-derived models sold in the US.
The SMMT adds that focus on crash tests also ignores the huge investment in the latest active safety systems like ABS, electronic stability and traction control systems, as well as crash compatibility and anti-rollover features fitted to modern 4x4s like the Volvo XC90.
The London Assembly Liberal Democrats’ views are posted online at
http://www.glalibdems.org.uk/news/307.h ... fe5b157e9eThe SMMT notes that the following models and model derivatives listed by the London Assembly Liberal Democrats are not currently for sale through official distribution channels in the UK; Chevrolet K5 Blazer, Land Rover SI, Chevrolet S-10 ZR-2, Chevrolet Tracker, Dodge Dakota R/T, Dodge Raider, Mitsubishi RVR, Foers Ibex, Ford F150 XLT 5.8 Lariat, Honda Element 2.4 litre EX, Hummer, Infiniti QX4, Isuzu Bighorn, Isuzu Jimny, Toyota Surf, Vauxhall Monterey.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
. So it's not really the size of a Scenic that's at issue, it's how many driven wheels it's got? Hmm. Or perhaps it's the butch look that bothers them. Nope, can't be that 'cos there's no mention of WRX lookalike Scooby Imprezas, and something that looks a bit more run of the mill like a Forester isn't on there even though it takes up about the same space as a Scenic and is 4WD as well. Or, since nearly a quarter of the vehicles on their list aren't available for sale in the UK, is it just a load of bollocks! 
I think all that this really tells us is that people who hate cars and know feck all about them probably aren't the ideal people to come up with motoring legislation. What'll be the next big idea: hiring hydrophobic non-swimmers as life guards?
(nearest i could find to pilot piglet)