It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SUV Owners Must Pay $50 Per Day to Drive in London

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectTater
 


I too believe in freedom of choice, but you should have to take responsibility and pay for the costs your choices impose on others. If a particular person chooses to drive a large gas guzzler they impose on others the costs of: increased pollution, increased property damage due to accidents, increased damages due to bodily injuries and loss of life due to accidents, increased military spending to fight wars in order to secure oil supplies from foreign countries, military and civilian casualties from said wars, etc.

Perhaps the 25 pound fee for all SUV's in London may not be accurately assessing the true costs of the externalities of SUV ownership. Perhaps it may be better to have SUV owners pay for the externalities through some other way like increased fuel taxes. Nevertheless the city of London should be congratulated by attempting to pass on the cost of externalities of SUV ownership to SUV owners.

I wish the state, federal, and local here in the US had the same courage. Unfortunately, too many people in the US think it is a God given right to drive a massive SUV or truck.




posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I too believe in freedom of choice, but you should have to take responsibility and pay for the costs your choices impose on others. If a particular person chooses to drive a large gas guzzler

err...

An Audi A6 isn't 'large' and certainly not a gas guzzler. It's a midsized sedan. It's on the list of cars that would have to pay to drive in the city.

I wish the state, federal, and local here in the US had the same courage. Unfortunately, too many people in the US think it is a God given right to drive a massive SUV or truck.

And I wish that people would do their research, but that - apparently - ain't gonna happen.

Another sedan - the Citroen C6 - isn't a SUV either. It's on the list as well.

It's good that you wish for things. Wishes are funny things, though; you'd better know what you're wishing for or you'll end up with something you didn't expect.

Pays to do the research.


Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Another reason why England sucks!


Liberal communists have take over that country and will run it into the ground. Its only a matter of time!


apc

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpectTater
Freedom seems to be very unappreciated in England and here at ATS it seems...Hard to believe so many people are in accordance with this.

You're dealing with socialists. It's not that they don't think, just that they think badly.



Originally posted by Agent Styx
In the end, it will curb the amount of people driving them in the city.

You're right about that one. Considering "gaint gas-guzzling SUVs" tend to be relatively expensive, I'm guessing these drivers have a lot of spending power. Those who don't like being discriminated against will take their business elsewhere and London will suffer.



Originally posted by budski
cars that produce a lot of pollution are banded higher...

It's called CO2, actually.

If you're going to keep calling it a congestion charge, don't talk about pollution. Unless you mean congestion of molecules in the air or something. If London has a problem with traffic, as a city they should deny traffic. Otherwise all they're doing is punishing people for engaging in legal activity. If they want to make it illegal, they should do so. Not reap the benefits of sales tax, property tax, and fuel tax (what we have here... I believe they're called something else there) and then turn around and tax people again for driving the vehicles and burning the fuel.

But let us run with the whole pollution charge idea. Why is a fee appropriate? Do they plant trees all over London? Or, as has been made quite evident by multiple users and yourself budski, is it to encourage compliance? A bit of behavioral modification? Harming people so they'll do what you want? Using pain or the threat of pain to gain cooperation and the surrender of assets? Hmm... yeah. That sounds progressive.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Not really many people own SUVs in the UK in the first place so I don't think this is hitting anyone very hard. The people that do own SUVs can afford to pay the fine in the first place.

The roads in Europe are much narrower in general than that of the US, especially downtown London.

I don't know if fines are the proper way to go about changing people's driving habits, but I think it'll make people think twice before taking the Hummer out.

Another poster mentioned the great public transportation system as well. You can get pretty much anywhere in Europe on a train or a bus for pretty cheap. The whole continent is around half the size of the US if I'm not mistaken.

[edit on 2/2/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
What a fantastic idea.
If youve got so much money to blow on fuel to drive a pointless tank, then why not contribute to society.

The size of these cars is stupid, they chew through fuel at a time when fuel is limited.

Make it $100 per day, and force these people to sell their vehicles

Better yet, give incentives to people driving fuel efficient 4 cylinder cars..
say $20 per day?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
What a fantastic idea.
If youve got so much money to blow on fuel to drive a pointless tank, then why not contribute to society.

The size of these cars is stupid, they chew through fuel at a time when fuel is limited.

Make it $100 per day, and force these people to sell their vehicles

Better yet, give incentives to people driving fuel efficient 4 cylinder cars..
say $20 per day?


Driving these cars is nothing but a clear indiciation of an egotistical person!



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
What a fantastic idea.
If youve got so much money to blow on fuel to drive a pointless tank, then why not contribute to society.

The size of these cars is stupid, they chew through fuel at a time when fuel is limited.

And here I believed that the little "deny ignorance" blurb under the ATS logo was something that all the members would adhere to.

Guess I was incorrect in that belief.

Again, citing the Audi A6 - a midsized 4-door sedan that is of average size that gets 40mpg - I point out that you're incorrect in your little diatribe. An average sized car that gets that kind of mileage is neither 'stupid' nor 'chewing' through fuel.

Deny ignorance, indeed...

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Its an illusion really. what u give with the right hand you take with the left, sure you can come into london, but we will extract monies from you for the right to do so, and you have no choice take it or leave it. More ways of taking money from the public, question is what actually happens to the revenue, anyone care to shed some light on this as i cant find any figures on this, even google these days is not the powerful research tool it was 3 years ago. I don't drive into london so its not a problem for me, but remember most people that do drive big suv's do so because they are a success, usually very successful, so whats wrong with that, nothing, except the left wingers inc red ken, believe its their god given right to take, hence the great idea of congestion charge, and like a disease it will spread be under no illusion, and remember when Charles and Di were getting married where was KEN then, at a meeting with the IRA, and you think ken really cares, well think again amigos, just like a movie, it will be coming soon to your city, so be aware
We are all slowly being conditioned to like and accept what is given to us, and being introduced to what is good for us with no choice what ever. However someone should remind these people of the Poll tax riots in the 80's, that reversed a few ideals then did it not, food for thought as they say.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   

£25($50)
£8($1


How does that work out? I assume that it's $10 and you just cut off the rest?

That would make a little more sence.

Anyway, $50 a day is insane. That, on top of their already crazy taxes (I think it's like 70% of their pay check), make me wonder how they afford to live. I guess they all make like $500,000 a year, cuz if they don't they all must be poor as hell. XD



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpectTater
Freedom is driving what you want when you want to.

If they can afford the gas and their vehicles pass current smog emmision laws there is no reason why law abiding citizens should be fined for driving them.

If you want to save the Earth by driving some econobox by all means go ahead. I won't put a stupid bumper sticker on your car.

THAT IS WHAT FREEDOM IS


Nope, that's stupidity...

Just because you CAN does not mean it's good..

Have we not learned enough from the US in Britain, I love the US and most of the people but there's always those who say 'god damn, I own the right to have 20 guns', I have the right to drive the biggest gas guzzling, polluting item because I believe in freedom...

Well, you may technically have the nod from some politician being paid off by the private sector to allow their brands but as with smoking these things have been proved to be both a massive danger to you but also to others.

And that's where the right to freedom is mistaken.

In the UK these monsters are purely a status symbol, normally driven by young mothers or wealthy wives simply to be part of a set. If these idiots want to drive around a city where parking is hard enough for a tiny car AND spread fumes galore then at least they should PAY hugely for their extravagance. I'm sorry but I see enough of these vehicles at my daughters school, a huge 4WD tank, needed by those that do all terrain work like farmers etc being parked in a space where 4 cars could go but parked in a way that the owner feels her love of her life won't be scratched or parked near.

Crush the things I say, good for the roads, good for the earth.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   
yes but why can't people park in london these days, show me one street or road which does not have a yellow line for no parking, private or residential, show me a Multi storey car park where its not got a sign saying FULL and you have to wait, show me a private road which is not on a permit system for more revenue, so where do you park, is it the size of the vehicle or where that vehicle can park, OK london was not created for so many cars, but please correct me if i am wrong, but was not the branding of DIESEL, for a few distinctive reasons, such as better for the economy, less fumes and more cost effective. Again lets give the crowd something to think about and them we take double from them, a pointer would be to make a list of all the taxes, relevant to cars, congestion etc in london, look at the revenue see where its spent and on what and then draw our own conclusions, that and a letter to Kenny babe, who i am sure is so so busy that he does not have the time to reply, want to have a try!!



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Another reason why England sucks!


Liberal communists have take over that country and will run it into the ground. Its only a matter of time!


Because of course, you've spent lots of time there and know everything there is to know about it.

Nobody has taken over - the government was elected according to the wished of the people.
If the people don't like it, they will vote them out - unlike the US where you can "win" an election by virtue of having your brother as governor and the person in charge of vote counting is heavily involved with your campaign.

What a seriously twisted viewpoint you have of a country you probably couldn't point to on a map.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Using the environment as a reason behind the congestion charge was always an excuse. Ken livingstone just wanted to show he could decrese congestion in london and make alot of money in the process. If they really were bothered about the environment they would use this money to off set the carbon emmissions by planting trees etc like some companys have started to do.

I am for congestion cahrge except I will admit it can be a huge pain when driving into london and you don't do it regularly, you sometimes find yourself about to enter the charge zone and get stuck.

Alot of people seem to be under the illusion that this extra charge is just for 4 x 4 owners but it isn't, its for any car that emits a certain amont of co2 there just happens to be most 4 x 4 cars in this range due to their stupidness. Some people have also suggested that some people need a 4x4 then can't afford a second car to drive to london. In england if you need a 4x4 you probs have your own land which means you can afford more than one car.

Also if you decided to take most of the 4x4's on the market off road your going to get stuck as most of them today are made for the status symbol market.

Peace



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I don't know anyone who voted for Gordon Brown? it was dirty tricks by the labour party because they knew that they wouldn't get in with Brown leading them so they used Blair when they knew full well he would be leaving soon.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   
The cynic in me sees the penalties for driving gas guzzlers in London having more to do with extracting cash from the well heeled rather than an environmental issue

I do agree with other posters though on these high powered vehicles. At a time when we are all being told to go greener, the big manufacturers seem to be in a war to produce ever more powerful vehicles - BMW and Audi especially.
Who needs a saloon or estate car with a V8, 500Bhp that will do 150+Mph for the daily commute? My fuel efficient Turbo Diesel will get me the 50 miles to work in about the same time as something costing many times more with a huge engine. It's all for show, status symbols for those people with the money to burn. Part of my commute takes me past a rather affluent area and, during the school run, it's wall to wall expensive SUV's, usually with Mum and a single child strapped into a £50K+ 5 or 7 seater....it's all for show.
I'll be replacing my 5 year old car this year with a similar model with even better fuel economy and an even cleaner engine. Sure, I could afford something bigger with a lot more power but do I NEED it? Absolutely not!



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   
I hold no pity for those owning a suv in the city these days. Why do you need one in the first place? It's all a hype thing...
Last time I checked down old street and oxford street there weren't particularly snowy in winter or hilly in summer. So thank you for the needles xtra tear on the roads and increased polution.


[edit on 2/2/08 by flice]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Sasaki

How does that work out? I assume that it's $10 and you just cut off the rest?

That would make a little more sence.

Anyway, $50 a day is insane. That, on top of their already crazy taxes (I think it's like 70% of their pay check), make me wonder how they afford to live. I guess they all make like $500,000 a year, cuz if they don't they all must be poor as hell. XD


Where did you hear 70% of their paycheck? O_o Denmark is one of the highest taxpayers at 48% for the general pop and 70-75% at highest rate.
It was a bliss for me moving to London
I pay around 10% for the amount I earn from england



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by almeister 5000
 

I've said the same thing before myself - but the fact is that we voted in the labour PARTY - and the party chose prudence as blairs successor.

I just hope he won't be there for long - that horrible fake smile really creeps me out.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I don't believe the argument is pollution, its cost to your way of life!

You're all saying how people who burn more gas are bad because they harm the environment. You only fuel the distraction, kids. The distraction involves the auto industry being "irresponsible" when its all they can do. They are a business, they must survive.. and the H3 is surviving.

The problem is not the waste or resources these things produce/use up, but instead the fact that their form of propulsion is based on gas at all. Yeah go ahead and argue it, but I feel we are well ahead of it.

We are not even as dependent on food as a market as we are on fuel. We buy food from hundreds of companies, but we only by gas from a select few companies who drill and refine (water down) oil.

This is an argument for the MSM, not ATS. The argument here should always be, "Why are gas-burning vehicles a problem in the first place?"

Answer: "THEY AREN'T NEEDED!"

Don't blame the car companies for not going the extra mile (in many countries they are-try aussie-land), blame them because they are scared of what the News will think.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join