Mayor Boris quashes the £25 congestion charge

[AtheneNoctua]

and quashes the 100% discount for low emission vehicles because it would actually encourage the congestion problem.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7494495.stm

surely you should tax them according to the amount they're polluting? otherwise someone who only uses it infrequently pays as much as someone who uses it 10 hrs a day.

with rights, come responsiblities

Boris Johnson cuts taxes on rich wankers? My word, how unexpected

zippi -- I always liked Ian Hislop's line on Parkinson: "Boris Johnson, people always ask me the same question, they say, 'Is Boris a very very clever man pretending to be an idiot?' And I always say, 'No.'"

Bundle, they are already taxed on their usage. We all are. Roughly 70% of the price at the pump is tax. Cars which use more petrol pay more taxes. So if you want to tax them even more for being environmentally irresponsible, then you should do it at the point of purchase.

higher carbon emissions does not necessarily mean higher fuel consumption.

I think a £25 fee for the heaviest polluters (ie @ point of polluting the rest of us on the streets of london) would have more realistically represented the kind of responsibility they bear to the environment.

for eg a 3 litre toyota land cruiser diesel emits 243 g/km of CO2 and does 30.7 mpg

A 4 litre petrol one emits 291 g/km and does 22.8 mpg

I dunno, when people bought big cars, they knew full well that these cars would damage the environment more than little ones. Or they should have looked up the CO2 emissions and EuroNCAP ratings for pedestrian and passenger safety.

(We own an old banger, though, it's probably terrible, but it is not a 4x4 and we couldn't afford a newer one.)

4x4 also more likely to kill pedestrians in collision, than "standard" car acc to euroncap.com

CD, that camparison is scientifically flawed because you have too many variables to draw any conclusiong. Different fuel types and different size engines. You need to compare two different sized petrol engines and then compare the emissions and see if there is a relationship between engine size and emissions. (I bet there is) And, of course, there is a reltionship between bigger enginines and fuel consumption.

Incidentally, there is also a relationship between how fast you drive and emissions but I don't see anyone campaigning to lob an environmental tax onto speeding tickets. Why not?

"4x4 also more likely to kill pedestrians in collision"

I'm sure that's true... because the car has more momentum. However, the fact that the car has more mass, makes it structurally stronger (generally speaking), and that usually means it is safer for the people inside it. So, selfishly, I could argue that a heavier less fuel efficient car is safer. Do you want to choose safety for you or low emissions? I'm in the selfish group when faced with this choice.

"The greater height and weight of 4x4s, as well as their flat fronts and stiff bonnets, means they are bottom of the class in Euro-NCAP crash tests for pedestrian safety."

@ sod the pedestrians attitude

(ie not just to do with mass)

your attitude really stinks and justifies imo a £50 congestion charge for 4x4s

at your sod the family attitude. Of course I put my family before someone I don't know.

However, the height is a valid point. In fact, the height makes the car more dangerous for those inside it as well because of course it will roll more easily.

Incidentally, I hate SUVs. Have never owned one. Never want to own one. I just think in the greater scheme of the environment they get more attention than they actually deserve. But, by all means make them illegal. I hate them because I think they are a road hazard. They block the view of smaller cars' drivers.

I just think the £25 tax was an excuse to collect £25 and not really anything to do with the environment.

I care about all families - there are some very safe family cars out there which aren't 4x4s so lower risk of killing pedestrians

Yes, and those are definitely a better option. I agree.

I just said if faced with the choice, I would choose my family's safety. But, as you point out, it is possible to have both and not have to choose between the two.

I care about the pedestrian crossing the street. But, I care about my children more. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or lacks normal human atttachment to her offspring. This does not mean I aim to run over the pedstrian with little or no remorse. It just means I look after my children first and foremost.

But as you point out, the SUV does have characteristics that make it more dangerous for the pedestrian with any gain in safety to its passengers. So, yes, I have yet another reason to hate SUVs.

But, I still think taxing people AFTER they have bought them is unfair, especially when it is at such an extortionate rate.

SORRY, typo...

But as you point out, the SUV does have characteristics that make it more dangerous for the pedestrian without any gain in safety to its passengers. So, yes, I have yet another reason to hate SUVs.