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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   
of course they're a pretty easy target really, so it's pretty inevitable this would happen. anyway suv drivers are SNIP, so i can't sympahise.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by tetragrammation]


Mod edit: Vulgarity and The Automatic ATS Censors

[edit on 2-2-2008 by sanctum]




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   


I have the right to expect clean air when I breathe - these monsters don't help.


I wonder what you drive whilst sitting on your self righteous throne, (I'm betting its not a Prius)......!

Easy to bash the $x$.....!

Yes they're driven by mums on the school run and only do 1/2 a mile a week!

Yes the closest they come to going off road is going up the kurb!

But the simple truth is they are used as a scape goat.....!

Other people are simply JEALOUS of other people driving them....!

It's the human psyche....jealousy and greed....nothing else....!

Don't give me that baloney about climate change!

MR


apc

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 

You think that American elections are rigged and yours are holy and pure? HAH! AHAHAHA!!

The Nazis used the electoral system to take power as well, you know. A tyrannical government voted into office is still a tyrannical government.

It's not a congestion tax. It's not a consumption tax. It's not an income tax.
It's a behavior tax.

People are being forced to pay in order to receive permission to engage in activities that are not illegal. If the level of CO2 output from these vehicles is so terrible, ban the vehicles. All London is doing is using environmental protection as an excuse to punish a certain group of people for behaving in a legal manner solely because another group of people don't approve of the activity. It's like imposing a tax on eating fast food or playing too many video games.

Thinking you have the right to use the State to force people to comply with your opinion of ideal behavior is fascism. An exercise in intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination. It's just as bad as thinking the State can decide what religion people practice or what sexual lifestyle they live. Enjoy your prison. You voted for it, right?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


The florida debacle is well documented - do you have any proof that UK elections have NOT been above board?

Didn't think so - just another one of your snipes at anything not american.

Anyone can have these vehicles, but if they want to drive them in central London they pay more congestion charge than cars which pollute less.

Quite simple really - even my 11 year old nephew understands.


apc

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I'm sure your 11-year-old nephew understands the definition of congestion, as well.

If it's simply to curb traffic, why is it OK to force some vehicle drivers to pay more than others when physical displacement is clearly not the issue. What you're really doing is like punishing people who have bad breath. I realize the socialist methodology these days is to conceal statist agendas behind ecologic fronts, but it's as transparent as the air. Clean air though, I suppose.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:42 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


damn right, man. im sick of these IDIOTS that belive in global warming! its total bs!


al gore makes me sick.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Right, as its totaly unrealistic at this point. You are talking about energy production, transpotation of food, etc etc etc. Untill a viable alternative exists we can do what we can to mitigate our impact while science looks for alternatives. Unless you want to revert back about 200 years or so, its never going to happen


You know this is a good point Fred. Do you know the extra tax that these types of vehicles have to pay? Delivery trucks, Fire engines, Buses, Semi-trucks, Garbage trucks, Emergency vehicles, etc. It would seem that they need to tax everything in this case, regardless of who owns the truck and what it is used for. It is not about the viability or importance of the vehicle in question, it is strictly about the amount of pollution apparently.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


Yeah I do wish there was actually a genuine concern behind these actions. However, it is definitely politically motivated.

If there was some ecological concern from the politicians I would be surprised...

As you said, this is a behavior tax. Do I think its right? No? But do I think it makes sense? Yes certainly.

If we are going to continue our rape of the environment without concern then we should be paying economic consequences. However, with that being said, large companies and corporations should be paying out their asshole for the same services. The major polluters are not 'consumers.'

There is no way in hell we can equal the amount of pollution a coal fired power plant puts into the air, along with the amount of aircraft the military uses.

Also, depleted uranium shells in use by the military is really ecologically friendly. I hear it even gives people and animals cancer; that's pretty good right?

What about all the remains from all our garbage?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


Care to expand on your assertion that UK elections are rigged?

Evidence?

Proof?
Didn't think so - not when your election that time was one of the biggest shambles and trod all over the very idea of democracy.
Way to go - buying the presidency

Apart from anything else, we don't want london to be like beijing when the olympics come.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


i hear ya.....what a friggin load this is....

also, meat, i hear ya....for 4 pages now you have been popping in talking about the audi and such which is NOT an suv....just know that i did take note.

i really do think some of this is an envy of sorts....you know, can't have the big toy for whatever reason but want it.
i don't drive an suv but i don't make that choice for fuel. i simply don't need one or want one bad enough to buy one....

to think that people over there with certain vehicles is going to have to pay a congestion charge is beyond me.
the ole roshambo i tell ya

i also like the people that complain about the big huge dangerous suv's on the road.....
don't like it? take the train.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
2.7 litre peugeot.....

2.7 litre audi
3.0 litre audi

1.9 and 2.5 litre volkswagon

2.y7 citroen

----------

these are the types of cars that are going to be TAXED like that...


gimmie a break.

when i think gas guzzler suv i think of for expeditions with 5.7 litre monsters.

those are baby cars man....i have a 3.1 in my impala and it is a 'small' six.....

what a load and you guys are swallowing hard....



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mmmeat
 


The particular plan that is put in place in London may have its flaws, one of which may be classifying certain cars as "large" that are not "large" and perhaps classifying certain cars as "small" that are not "small" or perhaps larger than some of the "large" cars. The principal of having people who drive large cars pay for the externalities of driving large cars is sound.

You are right that few, if any, portions of the US would adopt a policy of having truck and SUV owners pay for the externalities of driving large cars. While some people in the US are thankful that nobody is going to take away their Ford F150 that they sometimes use to tow their toys, others may be lamentful of the fact the US is killing itself with its appetite for oil.

In case you did not notice, terrorists funded by oil money launched an attack on the US on 9-11. If US cut their consumption of oil, they would decrease the money supply to the terrorists.

In case you did not notice, there is a mess in Iraq right now. The large US appetite for oil complicates the mess because
i) the desire to control oil rich regions of Iraq spurs conflict between various factions
ii) the US desire to keep the oil supply stable does not enable it to get itself out of the conflict.
If Americans cut their oil consumption, they might make it easier on whomever will become President to sort out the Iraqi war.

In case you did not notice, the scientific community has at the very least good reason to believe fossil fuel consumption is causing or will cause environmental problems. If Americans took simple measures like cutting back on the size of their cars, they could help solve the problem.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Boondock78
 


Its just another gimmick by the politicians to appear to be doing something.

They don't ever truly know what's going on, so they guess what the population wants at the current time.

The sad thing about it is that once a law is passed its almost impossible to repeal.

The majority of human traffic in London is pedestrian...If you're ever been there.

The taxis are the second most popular way to travel above ground, so why not tax them?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
ok then how about this, how many people reading this thread either own, have access too, or from time to time enjoy the pleasure of driving one of those large fancy and rather BIG, 4 x 4 SUV's. u know the ones which kenny L says are going to hit 25 big ones each day, anyone up for this..

ok me nice black tinted Range Rover Vogue SE. Oh and those really cute alloys - so so important when ur cruising along the Kings Road, on a saturday to look the part dont u think. Sat nav as standard, 16 speaker surround stero, leather interior with front seated arm rests, U got it baby, its the Dogs, well you know, what it is i am saying.

So whose next, what do you drive - and is it better than mine



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by mmmeat
 


The particular plan that is put in place in London may have its flaws, one of which may be classifying certain cars as "large" that are not "large" and perhaps classifying certain cars as "small" that are not "small" or perhaps larger than some of the "large" cars.


pretty serious flaw don't ya think.

i think it's a load of crap but i guess i am spoiled living in the states. i am not told what i can drive and for how much just yet.,....might be coming though.




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dnodnodno
ok then how about this, how many people reading this thread either own, have access too, or from time to time enjoy the pleasure of driving one of those large fancy and rather BIG, 4 x 4 SUV's.


i borrow my in laws blazer or dodge ram 1500 quite often actually. i am very glad they have those large vehicles



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Budski, your missing the point, congestion charging has nothing to do with pollution or anything else, its about taxing people full stop, and when they get rid of the Suv's and big engined cars then they will start on all the small stuff.

If the UK Goverment really cared about pollution why does it allow car manufactures to build such vehicles, why does it allow them into the country, to make money thats why.

They are very clever they get us arguing what vehicles we should drive or not and all the while they are taxing us to death. We pay for the roads to be built and we pay for them to be maintained and we pay road tax to use them and now they want us to pay more. Thats all their interested in in this country tax tax and more tax.

Where are the incentives/education to get people to use less polluting vehicles, there is none is there. The Goverment dont want people to get rid of these vehicles because the higher the price of a vehicle means they get more VAT and thats why they dont take any real action to remove these vehicles completely from our roads. So remember its you can pollute and congest all you like as long as you pay for it.

Instead of attacking the end user of a product how about having ago at those who make them and support their use.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


i have never been to london but i am thinking IF they are going to have this tax or congestion fee, then EVERYONE that registers a vehicle after such and such date should have to pay the fee. everyone already on the road should be grandfathered in as they were not aware of the tax and might not have purchased their vehicle if they knew about it.

you can start small with the small cars and increase the amount with the larger suv's.

people trying to say that london is only congested cause the suv's? i've never been there and don't need to go there to know that is not true....

this is a penalty for nothing, imo



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk...

the list of cars to be taxed as per what this article says...

you guys that live over there are getting bent...hows it feel?


apc

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
In case you did not notice, the scientific community has at the very least good reason to believe fossil fuel consumption is causing or will cause environmental problems. If Americans took simple measures like cutting back on the size of their cars, they could help solve the problem.

You're right old-fashioned fossil fuel consumption causes environmental problems. No one is debating this. Not anyone to be taken seriously anyway.

I'm all for everybody who doesn't require gas-guzzling ginormous vehicles choosing something more environmentally friendly. I chose to myself. I went from a big offroad SUV that got 15MPG to a sedan that gets 30. Once the battery technology and disposal process is improved, I fully intend to choose a hybrid. Choice however is the operative condition in all this. The quality of a society that voluntarily chooses the best course of action is immeasurably superior to that of one denied such a right.

Instead of London providing incentives to encourage helpful choices, they are providing gainful punishment for those that fail to do so. As with any other wealth-redistribution scheme it is in their best interest for these actions to remain legal, yet they simultaneously condemn it.

Hypocrisy is something government is good at. These people have it down to a science.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join