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

[Dundeegeorge]

Oh churchill

Wrong, it is injected into the jet eflux.

I love it when you talk dirty........

[Ruprect]

Wrong, it is injected into the jet eflux.

Warning Warning Geek Alert Geek Alert!

What? We're all geeks? Oh yes.

[Churchill]

Certainly does. Thats what airobatic display teams use to create smoke. Diesel injected into the combustion chamber of the jet engine or the exhaust manifold in a prop driven place. Dye in the diesel produces the different colours.

Wrong, it is injected into the jet eflux.

[TheMonkey]

Can you get a sticker that says "I torture small furry mamals for fun" to put in the rear window?

No longer do I do that. I have moved so there is no need to brutally mutilate the local vermin population

[bogeyman]

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?

Can you get a sticker that says "I torture small furry mamals for fun" to put in the rear window?

[Ruprect]

I strongly disagree.
The suburban trains are dirty, late and loads of cancellations.
The Underground, cancellations, breakdowns etc.
Busses, fine. Why? Because there are less cars on the road due to the congestion charge.

Excellent post backed up by sturdy statistics.

[Clog II The Avenger]

"A couple of months ago I was in town overnight so booked the family into a hotel and we had a couple of days out. Public transport is good now - at least centrally. If this is a result of the congestion charge (and I think it probably is) then it does have to be said it's working."

I strongly disagree.
The suburban trains are dirty, late and loads of cancellations.
The Underground, cancellations, breakdowns etc.
Busses, fine. Why? Because there are less cars on the road due to the congestion charge.

[ASB]

"Like I said previously these things don't happen overnight. I can however see the improvements that have been made - more frequent services, newer more comfortable rolling stock etc, so I personally am willing to give the scheme a chance"

In the late '80s I worked at the DTI. I also lived in Lambeth, so qucik walk to work etc was fine.

Anything else was a disaster. If I wanted to go to the theatre I'd miss the last tube, the buses had already stopped etc etc. Driving was really the only option.

A couple of months ago I was in town overnight so booked the family into a hotel and we had a couple of days out. Public transport is good now - at least centrally. If this is a result of the congestion charge (and I think it probably is) then it does have to be said it's working.

I suspect thos just outside ther charging zone have a total nightmare though.

[Ruprect]

[QUOTE=Troll][QUOTE=Ruprect]"There is already a polution charge at the pumps!"

No there isn't. Not as far as I know. There is no directive that revenue generated for the government from tax on fuel is directly channeled into reducing pollution. As far as I know.

The major change in petrol taxation came under the Conservatives in 1993 with the introduction of the Fuel Price Escalator.

The escalator was designed as a means both to raise money and discourage car use on environmental grounds.

Not quite what I said, but I take your point.

[Clog II The Avenger]

There is a lot of hoodwinking done about pollution in order to make the general public feel guilty. There were statistics published a few weeks ago that showed that there are just three UK manufactures that pump out more pollution than the total number of UK vehicles. Also if you work out the “ per passenger mpg” with and up-to-date aircraft it works out to be more fuel efficient that a single person in a motor vehicle. (I think the new Airbus is about 45 mpg per passenger. What is the most gas guzzling form of transport? Motor boats doing around 5 miles to the gallon and motor yachts doing around 2 gallons per mile.

The government does not trust the people, the governments blames the people for its own ills.

[Ruprect]

Hitting the people in tha wallet allows the wealthy to get away with murder and suggests we dont care about the pollution we only care about paying for it.

I would we do care about pollution, but your average joe, me included, will care alot more when we're made to pay for it. Ergo, it gets you thinking about the issue, changing your lifestyle habits slightly, and making a difference.

If you want to reduce it then you have to start with solutions.

Thats bollox. You have to start somewhere. How many 'solutions' come directly from parliament? Legislators produce laws which work towards solving some problems and creating others.

This is a start, and I approve of it.

[Ruprect]

What they do with that money is not my problem, only my cost.

Well, if you're using it for the basis of your argument you should at least pay it lip service.

What has Ken done with the money? He was supposed to be pumping it into London Transport to make it more efficient and cheaper.

Like I said previously these things don't happen overnight. I can however see the improvements that have been made - more frequent services, newer more comfortable rolling stock etc, so I personally am willing to give the scheme a chance

If they were serious aboout reducing congestion in London then they would ban the car completely.
Why should the rich be allowed to carry on driving when the plebs can't afford it.

Fanciful, yet unworkable, at least at the moment. besides, according to the scheme everyone who wants to can drive in, and if you choose to be more conscious about the vehicle you drive it is no more or less affordable, pleb or not

Those in power know that many people are tied to their cars. They cant afford to live where they work or there isnt any work where they live. They have to commute and it is logistically impossible and financially ridiculous to do so on public transport.

I would wager that this is not central london you are talking about then; a piece of cake to get around on public transport

Those in power then make up some story that the gullible will swallow, nay, champion to squeeze the driver for every last penny they can.

At least Dick Turpin was honest enough to tell you it was daylight robbery.

Well if you'd like to resort to insults then thats your lookout, however the relative cost of running a car hasn't changed since the mid 1970s, so I'm not quite sure what you're whinging about to be honest.

[The Lone Gunman]

I think you're half right and half wrong JG - we are taxed through the nose by NL, and I don't deny that at all, but I also think that someone needs to take the first step in getting joe public to change their ways re: emissions and global warming. The only way to do that (and be noticed) is hitting people in the wallet.

Hitting the people in tha wallet allows the wealthy to get away with murder and suggests we dont care about the pollution we only care about paying for it.
If you want to reduce it then you have to start with solutions.

[Troll]

[QUOTE=Ruprect]"There is already a polution charge at the pumps!"

No there isn't. Not as far as I know. There is no directive that revenue generated for the government from tax on fuel is directly channeled into reducing pollution. As far as I know.

QUOTE]
The major change in petrol taxation came under the Conservatives in 1993 with the introduction of the Fuel Price Escalator.

The escalator was designed as a means both to raise money and discourage car use on environmental grounds.

[Ruprect]

I think you're half right and half wrong JG - we are taxed through the nose by NL, and I don't deny that at all, but I also think that someone needs to take the first step in getting joe public to change their ways re: emissions and global warming. The only way to do that (and be noticed) is hitting people in the wallet.