Oh Dear: £20 c-charge call for 4x4 drivers

[DimPrawn]

Mrs ASB runs a landcruiser for a number of reasons

What are those reasons?

Why not a modern diesel estate car or mini people carrier or a van?

Why a tall, heavy, bulky 4x4 optimised and honed for rough off road conditions?

Just curious.

[Ruprect]

Noone is stopping Mrs ASB going into town with her Landcruiser, she just has to pay to do it. If you don't like it, get another car. The point about 'output in manufacturing getting a new one' etc is missing the whole point about these changes (charges) - it is to change people's attitudes to emissions and global warming. This will take time, and promoting the hybrid will encourage not only consumers to buy them (and replace the existing 'gas guzzler') but the more popular they become, the more investment the automotive industry will make in producing more models, better efficiency etc. This can't (and won't) happen overnight, but someone has initiate the change. Go red ken.

[ASB]

What are those reasons?

Why not a modern diesel estate car or mini people carrier or a van?

Why a tall, heavy, bulky 4x4 optimised and honed for rough off road conditions?

Just curious.

Because if we had a car we'd also need a horse lorry. There really aren't that many vehicles than can sucessfully (and legally) tow a three horse trailer and assorted paraphenalia.

Also her disabled mother can't get down into a car with any ease.

Granted we could probably work round these. So yes nobody "needs" a 4x4. But then by exactly the same argument nobody "needs" anything other than a smart car (or possibly bicycle).

[Ruprect]

Because if we had a car we'd also need a horse lorry. There really aren't that many vehicles than can sucessfully (and legally) tow a three horse trailer and assorted paraphenalia.

Also her disabled mother can't get down into a car with any ease.

Granted we could probably work round these. So yes nobody "needs" a 4x4. But then by exactly the same argument nobody "needs" anything other than a smart car (or possibly bicycle).

If you need a three horse trailer, then I'd say you can probably afford the £20 for your occasional trips into town.

[DimPrawn]

Fecking "rich" middle classes in their 4x4's

Why can't they drive a sensible 400bhp sports car like normal people.

[TheMonkey]

I'm actually trading in my rusty bird-tulip encrusted Rover at the end of the week and buying a Land Rover Defender 130 crew cab (300TDi so not a particular guzzler). Will I get raped for it?

one of these:



Why? I need to shift kit (lots of it) and I want something that actually manages the rough terrain of post-thames water cash-injection london holy streets... Oh and I do car boot sales a lot.

[DimPrawn]

You could buy a diesel people carrier (7 seater) and have much more kit shifting ability, it would do more MPG, be comfortable and cheap.

That belongs on a farm in Scotland.

[ASB]

Noone is stopping Mrs ASB going into town with her Landcruiser, she just has to pay to do it. If you don't like it, get another car.

Quite true. Unfortunately the only reason for going into town is to take me for medical appointments. I can't get there any other way.

I don't actually have a huge problem with charging more polluting larger vehicles more. I just have a problem with the excessively targetted nature.

The point about 'output in manufacturing getting a new one' etc is missing the whole point about these changes (charges) - it is to change people's attitudes to emissions and global warming. This will take time, and promoting the hybrid will encourage not only consumers to buy them (and replace the existing 'gas guzzler') but the more popular they become, the more investment the automotive industry will make in producing more models, better efficiency etc. This can't (and won't) happen overnight, but someone has initiate the change. Go red ken.

Fair comments but:-

If the charges are enough to make some people change the likelyhood is that they will purchase an additional vehicle.

An existing gas guzzler is probably less polluting (and less resource hungry) overall than manufacture of a new vehcile. [Until such point as the existing verhicle is not longer viable of course].

That is not to say peoples attitudes don't need to change - they do. However they are likely to be at their most efficient by using a vehicle for it's natural life and replacing it with the most efficient they can afford at that point.

If one is going to use an emotive "you don't need a 4x4 in town" argument the self same logic applies to all vehicles. If you start from that premise then the list of acceptable cars is tiny. [Granted a Bently is probably more undesirable than a Focus but it is a slope and why put the barrier at the arbitrary 4x4 place?]

[TheMonkey]

You could buy a diesel people carrier (7 seater) and have much more kit shifting ability, it would do more MPG, be comfortable and cheap.

That belongs on a farm in Scotland.

Yeah but it handles the tulipty roads and doesn't get dinked if you hit a cyclist running a red light.

[Ruprect]

Quite true. Unfortunately the only reason for going into town is to take me for medical appointments. I can't get there any other way.

- Really? absolutely no other way? Well if thats the case then you've just got to pay

I don't actually have a huge problem with charging more polluting larger vehicles more. I just have a problem with the excessively targetted nature.

- Errmmm is it not a sliding scale based on carbon emissions? I (Lazily) referred to 4x4s earlier, but it was only because these are the prime offenders... I think your bentley would be included too

Fair comments but:-

If the charges are enough to make some people change the likelyhood is that they will purchase an additional vehicle.

- hmmm not sure about that. I think your average joe may sell the existing and buy an alternative

An existing gas guzzler is probably less polluting (and less resource hungry) overall than manufacture of a new vehcile. [Until such point as the existing verhicle is not longer viable of course].

That is not to say peoples attitudes don't need to change - they do. However they are likely to be at their most efficient by using a vehicle for it's natural life and replacing it with the most efficient they can afford at that point.

Fair one, maybe they will; I would postulate that it is more likely in this case that when the said vehicle is replaced that they will choose one with lower carbon emissions - which is the point of the move

If one is going to use an emotive "you don't need a 4x4 in town" argument the self same logic applies to all vehicles. If you start from that premise then the list of acceptable cars is tiny. [Granted a Bently is probably more undesirable than a Focus but it is a slope and why put the barrier at the arbitrary 4x4 place?]

See point above about the sliding scale according to emissions. I think this is valid, and should be implemented not just in London. We should encourage people to use more public transport too, but ultimately (as I have said earlier) it comes down to money. if it is substantially more to drive than sit on the train next to a chav, then eventually this price will be 'worth' paying, even for rich contractors

see comments above