Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

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

241 replies

TheDullWitch · 13/02/2008 21:12

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.

OP posts:
TallDaddy · 17/02/2008 09:27

I work in insurance and we have recently had a spate of customer purchasing small cars or dual fuel/hybrid cars as a run around.

All of these people tend to be in

  1. congestion charge zones
  2. in high management/director level jobs

they now use the HUGE 4x4 for jaunts into the country where they use up hughe amounts of fuel and the little cars to pop over the C-zone to avoid charges.

I can understand why this would be really annoying if you can't afford to do this yourself!

needmorecoffee · 17/02/2008 09:30

Sushi, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Unfortunately your 'zoom-zoom' car is on the expensive side of the line. Someone will always be close to it and complaining.
And transition periods are always hard but if it works and car use decreases then the future will be better. I can't wait for it to be used in Bristol (second most polluted and congested city in the UK)
If I can reduce car use to zero in a city that has a terrible bus sytem (unlike London) with 4 kids, one of whom is in a wheelchair, then anyone can.
Waiting at a bus stop is not the end of the world. Having to struggle and put up with some inconvenience wont kill anyone and will be worth it if our cities actually do become more pleasant places to live with less pollution and less killed by cars.
Ken may be wrong but until its done, its not going to be known. And frankly, who needs more than a tiddly car for London? All those 4x4's! Suitable for Mogadishu maybe, but not flat London.

needmorecoffee · 17/02/2008 09:33

yeah, rich people will do that TallDaddy and I'd say they were selfish polluters. Changing people's minds now they appear to have been surgically attatched to their cars isn't going to be an easy job but hopefully its starting before we go the way of the US. I lived there for a couple of years and people would drive to the neighbours house 50 yards away. No exageration, I watched one family get into a monstrous 4x4 (none were disabled) and drive 3 doors up. Detached houses so maybe 50 yards? get out and go in for a BBQ.

TallDaddy · 17/02/2008 09:38

I lived opposite a family who's kids went to the same school as mine (at the end of the road) and they still drove. By the time I walked out of my door and up the road to the school, they would be still searching for a parking space. (they then drove around the block to get home and I had a nice cup of tea ready by the time they got in)

needmorecoffee · 17/02/2008 09:44

Why would they do that? I've always wanted to ask someone that question.

needmorecoffee · 17/02/2008 09:45

From the Independant.
Has it cut traffic?

At the end of the last decade, London suffered some of the worst congestion levels in Europe. The introduction of the congestion charge had an immediate impact, reducing the amount of traffic in the heart of the capital by about 15 per cent.

About half the drivers who left their cars at home took public transport instead, with the rest getting a lift, using motorbikes or cycles to get to work or avoiding the area altogether. Transport for London (TfL), which administers the scheme, said the overall amount of traffic fell by 21 per cent between 2002 and 2006. The result is that 70,000 fewer vehicles are on the streets every day than before the charge began.

Meanwhile, the number of taxis has risen by 13 per cent, bus and coaches by 25 per cent and bicycles by 49 per cent, confirming significant changes to London's transport patterns over the past five years. TfL says the extension of the charging zone to the West has produced a fall in traffic in the area of between ten and 15 per cent.

rest of article is here

TallDaddy · 17/02/2008 09:47

needmorecoffee...I think people don't know what their legs are meant for!

redadmiral · 17/02/2008 10:07

Thanks Nancy. I too agree that the other public transport systems should be made much cheaper - it just doesn't make sense if it's cheaper to drive than catch the train. I'm not sure that's within Ken's remit though.

I'm not saying I like him personally, but so far he has hugely improved public transport in and beyond our part of the C-charge zone.

sushifan · 17/02/2008 10:10

I wish we could take a bus or tube to school but it's literally not possible... Trust me on this-- I am a bus person! But there is no way. So, we will lose thousands of pounds and we are hardly polluters. It's a rubbish law.

policywonk · 17/02/2008 10:15

nancy - to be fair, a lot of the things you are talking about (and I agree with a lot of it) are way outside Ken's remit. There's not an awful lot the Mayor of London can do - it's not really a very powerful post. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair made damned sure that the post would have no power over privatised train and underground services, so he can't affect the ridiculously high level of charges on those services. He can only play with the equipment he has (so to speak). Similarly, he can only affect what happens in London - he's not Mayor of England (although I'd vote for him, on balance).

policywonk · 17/02/2008 10:26

sushifan - according to the link in the OP, this charge won't be introduced until 2009, so it's not exactly being dropped on people without warning. If it's going to be really inconvenient and expensive for you, you have almost a year to change your car.

sushifan · 17/02/2008 10:29

No for those of us in the congestion zone it's this October, according to the TFL site and it was never a sure thing so it wasn't something that could influence decision making.

Oh, and for what it's worth, dd's school isn't even in the congestion zone.. But I have to drive a block out through the zone from our place to get to the road to school!

sushifan · 17/02/2008 10:32

p.s. Having 7 months (or more) to change the car hardly means we won't lose money.

redadmiral · 17/02/2008 10:35

Playing devil's advocate a bit Sushi, but it's not recent news that it's better to choose a lower emission car from an environmental perspective - it's bad luck that you're having to pay, but if your DH had made a greener decision earlier you wouldn't be in this situation?

sushifan · 17/02/2008 10:35

Sorry to go on but another point including K&C in the congestion zone was a joke-- because almost everyone I know in the zone drives MORE.. we can all drive into the center now, since we're already paying to keep our cars here. So, if I could have taken a bus to Westminster or Marlyebone, I can just drive. So many city workers now just drive into the city who didn't before.

A congestion reducing charge it is not.

sushifan · 17/02/2008 10:37

Redadmiral, I won't apologize for our car since we use it about 1000 times less than most people use their cars.

redadmiral · 17/02/2008 10:39

I'm not asking you to - I'm happy if you use it as your extra contribtions will help our public transport and keep bus fares down.

sushifan · 17/02/2008 10:41

Well, we can sell it and we will probably get TWO cars that are under the limit-- DH will now start driving to work in that case. Great job Ken!

redadmiral · 17/02/2008 10:43

I think some of the conversations here more than demonstrate why a large stick is needed to persuade some people not to drive for the sake of the planet.

policywonk · 17/02/2008 10:47

sushi - I'm not saying this to wind you up further, honest, I appreciate that you're pissed off - but, next time you choose a car, you won't be choosing a Band G one, will you? (Or would you?)

In that respect at least, this charge will be doing its job.

sushifan · 17/02/2008 10:48

Look, we own a car and I still take public transport or walk more than I drive. But these charges don't cut congestion and I don't think they'll cut pollution too much for a variety of reasons discussed here. They also penalize irrationally.

spicemonster · 17/02/2008 10:49

Why is it Ken's fault that your DH is going to needlessly pollute more, sushifan? Or anyone's?

sushifan · 17/02/2008 10:50

Actually, if we lived on the other side of the road, I would keep the car the car which we HARDLY USE. Look, the law makes no sense. We are just over the 225 limit but my neighbor has a 220 or so car so she will keep driving for 4 pounds a week in the zone and drive a lot for that matter. Does it make sense?

sushifan · 17/02/2008 10:52

Oh, you'll all think I'm nuts for posting so much! Sorry! But I'm just pointing out that the congestion charging policies do not reduce congestion, nor will they reduce pollution. It's just a tax and it's absurd to think otherwise.

sushifan · 17/02/2008 10:56

I just read the following in the telegraph:

Livingstone has chosen to make all cars in road tax bands A and B (with emissions up to 120g/km) exempt from the congestion charge, while those in bands C-F will continue to pay £8 a day. This will allow thousands of conventional petrol and diesel cars to enter central London for free for the first time since the charge was introduced five years ago.

So, how's that going to help matters?