Arse: according to Ken LIvingstone my car is so unGreen I'll have to pay £25 congestion charge

[TheDullWitch]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6146442.stm

It's only a blardy Volvo estate, not a 4X4 and actually I'm Mrs Public Transport and must have only driven it into the congestion zone 3 times since charges started.(And we re getting rid of it anyway in two months.)

But that ruling will just lead to lots of richer families buying a second, runabout car which doesn t have to pay the charge. Which is hardly Green. Whilst lots of poorer families will never be able to use the one big family car they need.

French government owns 51% of SNCF, which owns the trains & operates them. Tracks are owned by another government entity, because of EU regulations. Both are heavily subsidised, I imagine.

Our feelings for 4x4s and cars in general aside, what government is doing with this new tax on cars is indefensible. £25 per day! That is £750 per month. How many people can afford this?

You know how laws can't be retroactive? So if did something before it was deemed a crime, you can't be prosecuted. That is so because anything else is not fair for those who act on the basis of information available at the time.

It is one thing to say "for cars bought from this day onwards" but this is penalising people who have invested in these cars thinking they would actually be able to use them and now won't. Maybe you don't have sympathy for the wealthy but how about the rest? What about the families who have bought a family car with their savings and now can't afford to use it?

Cote d'Azur this is EXACTLY right. It's completely unfair this isn't how laws should operate. Retroactive punishment as anti-democratic, at best.

When the CC first came in, my bus commute to work dropped from one hour to 50 minutes, overnight. After about a year, it was down to 40 minutes. (Better bus lanes, more buses).

So charge away, Ken.

That's great cocobear-- fewer cars or more bus lanes do you think? I drive in the zone but I didn't drive in it before the extension (more people are driving), so I can't compare. But the traffic will get worse again with the new congestion charge laws.

p.s. I hope they do manage to use the money well. Everyone I know will just change cars, though, b/c they can't afford 25/day and they need their cars. Plus they'll lose the 8/day for a lot of cars (band a and b)

We do live in central London and have a category F people carrier but if you check the full details of the plans this too will be covered by the new charge. So instead of paying £4 a week we will have to pay £25 a day. The vehicle is registered April 2001 and any vehicle registered before September 2001 or has an emission level over 225 will be covered. So it is not simply band G vehicles. Like many families we cannot afford to simply change the vehicle that we have chosen for a good reason in that we do a lot of travelling and also towing.

There are many more people likely to be affected than realise. There will be more cars on the road and they will still emit some pollution even if they are low category.

If you look at the documents on the Mayor of London web site, some interesting things emerge (relevant to this discussion):

1. the aim of the CO2 charge - as it's called on there - is (as you'd expect) to reduce carbon emissions, rather than further reducing congestion or improving air quality more generally.
2. Influencing future purchasing decisions and encouraging the market for low-carbon emissions cars are also major objectives.
3. Re. congestion being increased by vehicles in Bands A and B being exempt: the policy document says that there are very few cars in Band A, and not many popular models in Band B. However, it says that maufacturers have rushed to introduce Band B cars, knowing that this sort of change was coming - an example of the policy working, if judged by its own objectives.
4. It says that TfL has modelled this change and its models do not show congestion increasing as a result. However, congestion levels will be monitored, and if they seem to increase then charges will be introduced for Band B cars, and possibly for Band A.
5. To quote from the Decision Statement: 'When is all this going to happen? ... the key date which will be 27 October 2008 for the new higher CO2 charge and for the 100% low CO2 discount for bands A-B... Those with cars subject to the higher charge, including residents who pay an annual charge at the standard or residents? discount rate before 27 October 2008 will in practice be able to defer paying the £25 charge until October 2009.' This hardly counts as 'retrospective legislation', in my opinion. (Oh, and it's not true to say that legislation is never retrospective - I know it's a general principle but there have been exceptions, including the scrapping of the double jeopardy protection for serious crimes, which was enacted largely so that the CPS would be free to bring a prosecution against the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, despite them having already been tried once before.)

BTW I do not work for Ken (although I do think he is more good than bad).

I am intrigued by the vast quantity of signage that is appearing, eg the green zone? I have just driven along a road where all the right hand roads have a sign on - 20 in total. Now I also know these signs cost a bomb, to manufacture and install. I really really dread to think how much Ken and Co. spend on these signs and also how vile they all look. It will be millions - perhaps this is where the tax, ooops charge goes?

And as for allowing small cars in - barmy

some of the signs are for a different thing, i think the green zone is for lorries and reaches quite far out of the congestion zone. lorries over a certain age/above certain emission levels have to pay (think it £200 per day) but as most mums dont drive hgvs i dont think it will effect many on here!

Whilst mums may not be the largest number of drivers of HGVs and other white vans I suspect that some of their other halfs might be. perhaps the biggest issue for Mums on this should be that those businesses who have to upgrade their vehicles over the next few years, or pay the £200 a day charges, will inevitably pass those costs on to their customers - probably the Mums. So there is no change without there being some Mums affected somewhere.

It effects our school bus. It could do with replacing anyway, but the school doesn't have the money, they certainly can't afford en extra £200 to take a class trip. We'll have to buy a new one. And money will have to be sacrificed from some other vital educational expense. Thanks, Ken.

A transition time is always going to be painful but if its better for the long term then it has to be sucked up.
Some changes are great - Child Tax credit for example. Overnight we went from no money to the Guvmint giving us free money for having children. Marvellous. Only people who whined were the child-free.
Some are much tougher - when rationing was introduced in WW2.
This congestion charge is nowhere near as tough as rationing and your grandparents would be laughing their socks off at the whining. Bit of creativity and inconvenience and you can get anywhere in London.
Like I said, I can't wait for it to start here although I think those who can afford high emission cars like racing cars and 4x4's will probably pay and swan off down the road glad the riff raff are off the streets. Hopefully us riff raff will be on buses and cycling and the drivers will be stuck at 10mph (like they are now)
In 10 years time the polluting lorries/buses/coaches will be gone, people will be driving smaller cars less likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists and kids will ask 'so why did people drive chelsea tractors then?'
I'm actually exempt from all these charges but no way would I be selfish enough to drive in London. No need with buses that take wheelchairs.

I watched a progamme about effects of climate change and it showed rows of bodies in an area of Africa which had been ravaged by drought and crop failure. Whether that particular premise was correct, there is growing eveidence that Africa is being adversely affected by climate change:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6092564.stm

I'm certainly not doing enough about it to criticise others, but I am always surprised when people are negative about, or try to block, attempts to do something about it.

If the goal was indeed 'influencing future purchasing decisions and encouraging the market for low-carbon emissions cars' putting a 100% tax on high-emission cars would work much better than taxing everybody and their dog.

I live in zone 5 and it is still cheaper for me to get the train than pay for parking in London. As far as I am aware public transport for children is largely free in London? (Have under 5's so don't really know about older children).

I used to work in the congestion charge area and it was faster for me to cycle 7 miles to get to work than drive. (And as mentioned before, even though this was actually pre-congestion charge, I would have had to get a second job to pay for parking).

Congestion charge Shmeshtion charge. They could half it and it still wouldn't be logical for me to drive into London.