The story, and the sort of comments that come out of the environmental lobby which support these policies perpetuate a myth about a style of car and deliberately make pariahs of drivers. I can personally attest to this as a driver of a 4x4 who, when I mentioned that I drove one on 18 Doughty Street was actually hissed at by Lynne Featherstone MP.
Take a look at the following cars:
All 4x4's right? Evil environmental damagers! The drivers of these cars are scumbags who don't care about the planet and deserve to be punished and treated like social pariahs for their lack of compassion and their unwillingness to be taxed extra for driving such evil cars!
Wrong. All of these cars have carbon emissions that will mean they are not subjected to any extra congestion charge. Yet socially the drivers of these cars are sneered upon as environmental destroyers because the ignorant chattering class Guardian readers (and at least one Lib Dem MP) know sod all about cars and find it easier to talk about the style and assume that 4x4 = bad.
What of course makes it all the more galling is when these very same people drive saloons that actually output higher CO2 rates than the 4x4's they so detest.
N.B. I drive one of the cars in the pictures above.
27 comments:
It's not the 4x4 aspect or the carbon emissions but the sheer size of these vehicles which bugs me. Unlike a hatchback or estate car or even an MPV, they impede the view of other drivers, especially when one draws up beside you in the car park. They should be relegated to the lorry park!
You might have a point in relation to say a Range ROver or Landrover Discovery. But in relation to the cars above you're talking complete and total bollocks. The Citroen Picasso is wider and has a longer wheel base than the above, as too is the Vauxhall Zafira. Yet again more bollocks and ignorance about cars using broad sweeping generalised crap. The only time the above cars are actually hugely bigger than other cars is when the other car is something like a Lotus.
I loved the one about the new compact VW whose carbon emissions are considerably less than the Prius - of course it won't be exempted from the C-Charge.
I think you've hit the nail on the head their Dizzy - it's people who know nothing about cars who make these mindless comments, it's somewhat akin to the stereotypical woman who when asked but type of car she drives replies with "a red one".
(says Caroline who has borrowed her step father's car for the weekend and has no idea what type of car it is at all past the fact that's its an Audi. But that's not the point! I don't go around judging peoples carbon emissions based on what their car looks like!)
Whilst I agree in principle that something needs to be done about carbon emissions, and encouraging people to drive more enviromental friendly vehicles.
Still I fear that like road pricing this is more a tax raising agenda than an enviromental one.
The congestion charge has caused a fall in the number of vehicles entering inner London.
This in turn has led to a fall in the revenue raised, or projected incomes.
Answer lets find another way to make the short fall up.
But one point I feel that many politicians are missing, and perhaps overlooked by many of us.
There is a recession coming, many people are already struggling to make ends meet, couple this with more increases in base rate.(I predict 6.5% by the end of the year by the way.)
People are just not going to be able to afford to go to work by car.
Public transport is so under invested, and fragmented, no matter how much money government throws at it will it be able to take up the strain of increased usage.
Hold onto your hats lads the next couple years are going to be a bumpy ride - whatever form of transport you use!
It says a lot about environmentalists that they take especial delight in "mine's smaller than yours" competitions.
I can wait for the day when the Co2 theory is finally debunked, and the scale of the Carbon Credit Scam is shown to the people.
People who are only half informed are far more dangerous than those who are fully informed, which is why the IPCC refuses to debate MMGW.
Divide and rule.
Interesting that nobody so far thinks it is a good idea.
I agree with much of what is said above, including I have to say the bit about big, high cars in car parks, all of them not just 4 x 4. But then I drive a low coupe, and simply have to reverse blind out of parking spaces.
I disapprove of congestion charge on principle, but to set a charge at this level is crazy.
I just happen to remember what a friend of mine said when the first tranche of London congestion charge was mooted. This guy is a multi-millionaire. "It will be wonderful," he said. "The charge will mean nothing to me, and I shall have such an easy time with clear roads because other people won't be able to drive in."
So that's Ken's and Labour's approach to fairness, is it?
Good stuff Dizzy, I think it was the dread Polly Toynbee who wrote recently that she she likes to glower at 4x4 drivers but that disappointingly they didn't seem that humiliated or cowed by her righteous scowling. Odd that.
What next flat beer/pop? loads of co2 there,rice fields apparently spew the stuff out,trees do cows and sheep people,volcanoes ban em all.Polly for emporer naked of course.If you stick a small electric motor on a tank and called it a hybrid no charge hoho.
Why are you all taking this carbon emission scam so seriously? It's a lefty, one-worlder construct. If you take it seriously, you are in the same camp as Dave, who has bet the farm on all this being real.
Meanwhile, it was high enough profile to propel Al Gore back into the national consciousness in the US,which was the point. He is looking forward to being selected to run as someone's VP, or getting a high profile spot in the new Dem administration. Al is one of those people who can "move on".
verity, you have to take it seriously because whatever you're view on it the left are in charge and taxing us for it.
"...think it was the dread Polly Toynbee who wrote recently that she she likes to glower at 4x4 drivers ..."
She can glower at me if she likes. I just won't bother looking down at her from the seat of my Jeep Grand Cherokee, so I won't notce ;)
"I don't go around judging peoples carbon emissions based on what their car looks like!"
I don't go around judging people's carbon imissions, full stop. As Verity says, it's just a scam...
In Manchester we are due to get a smart charge that is concentrated at congestion times and nul poids at off peak. Including for off peak. Nonetheless the man with the biggest out of town shopping centre is running a mad campaign against it and one of his 16 sheet posters has what looks remarkably like four women in hijabs spying on poor drivers. Will blog it later.
PS Is driving a souped down 4x4-a-like similar to driving an ordinary mark II cortina with all the lotus and ghia badges and stripes all over it but bog standard under the bonnet?
PS featherbrain got into all sorts of knots protesting about these and also about a Tory council proposal for higher parking charges for them ...
Do I lose points for having a Nissan Figaro - 16 year old - less than 1 litre but with a turbo and automatic!
Well, Dizzy, you have a point. Yes. But you have to tell your public servants that you aren't tolerating it. And to fix it. Otherwise, you'll get mad and by the way, could they send you a report on this individual's "expenses" last year, please, for your records?
They're cowards. They respond to bullying. They will resist, of course, as feral creatures do when threatened, but you have to tell them what the terms are.
Having lived in the United States and lived in Britain, being British, I cannot believe how supine the British are in the face of their government. And they use a phrase which turns my stomach: "Our political masters."
This is THE WRONG ATTITUDE. It's not cool and ironic. It is stupid.
When are the British going to understand who "the political masters" are?
Americans do not let their politicians get away with an inch. They're on the phone, on the email,organising groups, writing to papers. American legislators know who is in charge. British legilslators think it is them. They think they got elected to be boss. Not servant.
This has puzzled me for years. YOu're going to allow your country to die of irony.
Then you'll be post-ironic.
the stereotypical woman who when asked but type of car she drives replies with "a red one".
Well Caroline, I have great news. A new gadget has come on the market, especially for women. Its called RTC (right turn control) Basically it interfaces with your satnav. The idea is that you select the amount of time you are prepared to add to your journey in order to avoid those pesky right turns. It can be calibrated to add ten, fifteen or as much as sixty minutes to divert you to an easy route.
The Standard RTC has directions voiced by Sean Connery and a cup holder.
Dizzy - That is such a weak argument! It's so supine. These people are not your boss! You are their boss! You get to call them and tell them you don't like their policies and they need to change them. Once you cut through the wadges of comfort and superiority that people in government in Britain have - this includes little termites doing local government jobs - you can slice them off at the knees.
"Why did you think you had my permission to take this action?" "Did you consult the people who employ you?"
Yes, if they're in a safe lefty seat, there's little you can do, I acknowledge, but you can sow a seed of terrible doubt in their greedy little minds. Because they are garbage. With few exceptions, in Britain, your elected representatives are ordure.
If size is an indicator of a problem, then the MMGW juggernaut and the environmental bandwagon would be in trouble.
It's not a weak argument verity, it's a practical one. They're going to go on about this and if they;re in power they will tax us for it. You therefore have to engage with the argument and point out the absurdity of their thinking, for example, on the styl "4x4"
But why do you need 4 wheel drive in london, are the roads that bad, or does it snow a lot?
If you need a big car to carry your tribe around, then fine buy one. But why waste energy and money with all those extra gearings, drive shafts and differentials that will never be used on a 4x4?
It's not permanent 4x4, in fact, most of the above cars are not permanent 4x4. The Honda CR-V for example only goes into 4x4 when the wheels are slipping. So...err... you're talking bollocks, plus, most 2 wheel drive average size cars have greater energy consumtion than those above. Again ignorance reigns free!
I wasn't talking about friction losses when the 4 wheel drive is actually engaged. But the energy wasted just carrying around all that extra weight of the 4 wheel drive machinery, in an environment where it will never be required anyway.
Neglible when you compare it to driving an MPV full up with shit. And anyway, it's my money that gets spent on the petrol. Arguing that I shouldn;t drive a particular type of car because of it's weight is weak when I could drive a small cars and load it up with loads of weight.
"But why waste energy and money with all those extra gearings, drive shafts and differentials..."
Simple. Because it's our money to waste....
My car is a Mercedes C Class diesel, fuel consumption over 40mpg.
Officially classified, and taxed, as a "gas guzzler" .......... as you say dizzy they haven't got a clue.
Post a Comment