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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen smith
 


Regarding the video you posted, THAT IS SO WRONG!!!

Regardless of how you feel about climate change or whatever, nobody has any right to vandalize the property of others.
These are the same Liberal vandals that go to the shopping malls and key the vehicles with "W" stickers.

Maybe those clowns should go do the same to all the SUVs at Al Gore's Global Warming Seminars





BTW Op, I'd like to know what type of bicycle you ride.




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Has anyone noticed the only people that are having a problem with this arent the UK members but members from the US,

This is a great Idea and the best thing livingston has done so far
he may be a loud mouth peace of work most of the time
but he can do alot of good aswell

cudos to him


apc

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
Has anyone noticed the only people that are having a problem with this arent the UK members but members from the US,

Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledgment of this.

It's good to be the King.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


The king who can't back up his statements.

Especially the ludicrous ones.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Anyways all said an done, whats the point of arguing, its not down to us anyway, is it. We shall receive what it is we are given, have no say in the matter or matters, and just accept it, thats all there is to it really. So why dont we all just accept it. Funny thing is lets see how the american's react when it hits NYC, Chicago, or LA, because we would have to be really stupid if we didn't believe in whats received is given, so u guys gave to us the Wheel Clamp, and we are so glad to give to you in the future a working system for the congestions farce, or should i say charge. Dig deep into your pockets or do the only logical thing get a bike



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Bodrul, I have a problem with it and I did not realise you had been elected to speak for UK members. If you want to give the Fascist pigs more money then please go ahead but dont ask me and others to do it.

As stated earlier if the Goverment really was concerned about pollution of GW then why dont they do something about it, making people pay more tax does not solve the problem it just gives the Govermnet more of our money for them to blow on wars or any other scam they have going.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
[
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.


Kudos to you for making a smart choice. Like I said before people should have all the choices they want, but at the end of the day people should have to pay for harms their choices cause to others. One problem with the proposed London fee is that it is a "penalty" for driving a large ar in that the fee proposed may not be commensurate with the damage that large cars cause. If the fee were commensurate with the externalities of large vehicle ownership, the plan would be more reasonable. Another problem with the London plan is that the money collected may not be used to combat the problems that large cars create like pollution or increased accident fatalities. The plan would be more reasonable if the money raised went to alternative energy research, hospitals, and the mass transportation system.

The difference between rewarding people who make good choices or charging people extra money who make bad choices is just a matter of semantics. If we offered a rebate or tax break to people who bought fuel efficient car, the net effect would be that people who bought fuel efficient cars would have a lower tax rate. If we made people who bought gas guzzlers pay a fee or extra tax, the net effect would be people who bought fuel efficient cars would have a lower tax rate.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by hotpinkurinalmint]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


didnt you get the memo?
i was announed Supreme ruler and Voice of the UK a few days ago

ok stupid joke on my behalf,

i appoligise if i offended you and presumed that UK members here didnt mind,
guess i can be narrow minded sometime and should have said a large number of US members are complaining compared to a small number of UK members



[edit on 2-2-2008 by bodrul]


apc

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
The difference between rewarding people who make good choices or charging people extra money who make bad choices is just a matter of semantics. If we offered a rebate or tax break to people who bought fuel efficient car, the net effect would be that people who bought fuel efficient cars would have a lower tax rate. If we made people who bought gas guzzlers pay a fee or extra tax, the net effect would be people who bought fuel efficient cars would have a lower tax rate.

Incorrect. The net effect of the latter is people who bought fuel efficient cars would have a normal tax rate. The difference may be the same but the origin quite clearly is not.

Sorry but your logic is like saying my stealing money from you is the same as you giving it to me - the end result is the same.

Man... socialists are like dogs chasing cars. Funny the net effect is often the same.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by apc]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I'd like to catch someone putting a sticker on my vehicle. I'd teach them to dance to ".45 music." Meanwhile, the hero of hypocrites continues his rape of the world.





posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
wow, its not the actual tax that strikes me. it's the blind 110% will to follow a regulation that doesn't solve the problem of congestion, doesn't help the SUV owners, or clear the air you breath. If this regulation was passed in America there would be an uproar in the streets the next day guarenteed, especially the shape our economy is in. If anything the regulation critisizes lawmakers and government initiatives.

Here's what i see wrong with the tax.

1) This tax, goes Around the problem.

2) SUV's or Not London Will Still be Congested.

3)Seeing that SUV's are not popular in that region, their absence will still result in there being Smog and Air pollution. As their presence was not orignally the majority on terms contributing to pollution.

4). The tax, does not aid SUV owners in seeking other alternatives of transportation. Since SUV's are now (or has been) looked down upon the owner is now burdened with the task of removing that SUV. When a Local solution isnt viable (such as selling the SUV) seeking other alternatives can be very costly, unless a trade-in is possible (Don't bet on a car sells man to take that burden since he probably won't be able to sell it)

5) Public knowledge on where (or what) the money is being used on.

6) The city of London(Gov) should be held responsible for allowing the Sells of SUV (or other imports that contradict their beliefs).

7) Little to no effort in striking deals with auto-makers worldwide. instead of feeding off the tax, an agreement could have been made resulting in auto-companies competing to market a more fuel efficient eco friendly vehicles. Allowing other nations to follow suit with "environmental based decisions"

8) London is a dense urbanized city that is hundreds of years old positioned on a river. Design not for heavy traffic, nor does the city utilize other means of mass transportation. (ex. Japan, Or Taiwan being one of the cleanest cities on Earth). Civil Engineering?

As i see it, they're just exploiting the populace. nobody is willing to change it because they're just riding on a wave of social generalizaions that is media sponsored. The Tax really doesnt do anything except make the rich richer at the expense of SUV owners. Not to mention it can propel the sells of sedans or other fuel efficient vehicles.

IMO its useless, almost hypocritical of the supporters.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I'd like to catch someone putting a sticker on my vehicle. I'd teach them to dance to ".45 music." Meanwhile, the hero of hypocrites continues his rape of the world.


Yea, i'm pretty protective of my property too. I'd flip if i even i saw one touch my vehicle. If i saw someone tagging my pride and joy, i'd invite them to a private conversation with my hand. and if they were interested in my vehicle i'm pretty sure they'll be happy to have a joy ride in my trunk.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by pavlovsdog


I can do things with it that a smaller car with less HP cannot do. And besides, the whole climate change is a fiasco that is taking the brits by storm. Yes, there is climate change...but, its a natural cycle. Its happened in the past, and its happening now. Co2 emissions are not the cause of it. The ocean is the number #1 source of Co2 emissions, yet I dont see anybody boycotting the ocean, or "taxing" the ocean..


Well presented and completely true


You people from across the pond are being taken for a ride... Its all a ploy to make more money off you through fear mongering tactics.


You hit the nail right on the head!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Taxation in 'rip off' Britain is gathering momentum courtesy of a government obsessed with increasing tax on anything and everything that will generate more revenue (presumably to fund the financial stresses that immigration has created) and the increased Congestion charge increase for SUV owners is yet another knee in the b***s.
The eco penalty is another addition to bleed more revenue from motorists at a time when automotive fuel prices increase weekly.
Greed is the motivation & seemingly the government want more than their pound of flesh.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
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.

Err...Nope. That's incorrect. The flaws - from everything posted so far in this thread - are members who don't read or understand what they're arguing against.

True, the title of the thread kind of indicates that even the OP didn't understand the article, but everyone else dogpiling on the imaginary argument that this is about SUVs indicates a certain lack of reading and comprehension.

It's NOT about SUVS.

Not sure how long it's going to take to get that through everyone's head here...

Maybe I should mention the Audi A6 again..? Naah. If they haven't gotten it by now, they're never going to get it, and they - and their displaced argument - are to be marginalized from this point forward.


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.

An interesting take ... but I never said that.

And you're horribly, horribly incorrect.

However, at least - in the U.S. - we tend to put less weight on the emissions of the vehicle than on the ... well, weight of the vehicle. the GVWR, to be specific. Vehicles like the H2 aren't allowed to go down certain roads or park on certain streets because of their weight. I had an H2, and I'm probably getting another one (an SUT) later this year. It goes very well in the snow and mud and meets the mission envelope that I have for it better than my '07 Wrangler Unlimited did. Oh, and I'll be using the tax write off on it like I did with the last one. I do use it for business.


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.

That's a pantload. If the U.S. opened up more refineries and drilled for oil in the rich oil fields located in the U.S we'd decrease the amount of oil we buy from third-tier places like the middle east.

We don't need to curb our consumption of oil.


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

We have no desire to control oil rich regions of Iraq. But that's an argument for a completely different thread.


ii) the US desire to keep the oil supply stable does not enable it to get itself out of the conflict.

You misunderstand what is going on in Iraq. I'd recommend some reading for you, but it appears that you think the OP was about SUVs. And besides, that's an argument for a completely different thread.


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.

Is this the same scientific community that believes that there's such a thing as manmade global warming?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

I drive the car I do because I can. I'm not buying some little schmedly of a battery-operated wind-up car that can't tow a boat, tow an airplane, climb out of a mud bog, drive through a snowdrift, keep my butt warm and my Starbucks heated because some politician who doesn't understand how the Electoral College works gets a hair up his keester about an imaginary problem that only exists in a computer model that has been proven to be flawed - if not completely wrong - by the majority of the scientists of the world as well as mathematicians who make graphs and programs for a living.

And, further, my Hummer H2 SUT will - over it's entire lifetime - put out less environmentally damaging doodoo than the single battery pack from a Toyota Prius (Toyota claims 180,000 miles of testing on the battery pack ... I know several owners who have had to replace their battery packs under warranty within 50K miles). So, at the end of the day, MY Hummer is more environmentally friendly than Toyota's Prius.

So - to quote a certain poster - "in case you did not notice" the OP article wasn't about SUVs. Nor was it about oil.

A far better measure, in my opinion, would be to build a charge based on GVWR than on emissions.

Your pal,
Meat.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by mmmeat]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dnodnodno
So whose next, what do you drive - and is it better than mine

I don't know whether it's 'better' than yours, but my current daily driver is a lifted 4x4 Jeep Hemi Commander Limited, nav, heated seats, all the nice things. I drive it up to the mountains all the time. Love to drive around the Toyota Prius and other high mileage/FWD vehicles that get stuck in the snow. I'd wave at the lil' tree huggers, but then I'd have to put down my Starbucks Venti Breve White Chocolate Mocha. I get 9mpg in the mountains, 12mpg on the freeway.

I sold my 427 Cobra replica, which was more entertaining to drive. It had a 508 V8 (started off as a 460), took the 100 octane unleaded that was only sold by a few Union 76 gas stations. It had a 17 gallon tank, cost $85 to fill up, and I could only go 85 miles before I had to fill up again. Yes, I got 5MPG. But they were all fun miles.


Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 03:12 PM
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


I agree here. If I want to drive a Hummer limo to the corner to get cigarettes, leave it running while I hang around the store, etc. Then that is my choice. It is a street legal car so the authorities can shove their extra tax where the sun dont shine.

It's also a bunch of # that people accept "I'm changing the climate" bull as fact when it is only speculation and theory. For all we know the climate might be changing becaus eof a series of events triggered millions of years ago or somewhere else in the Solar System. Maybe the dinosaurs all farted at once way back when.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
What interests me more than whether this is a tax on SUV's or smaller polluting vehicles is the ramifications of yet another penalty for living in 'free' society, another fee for which the people did not vote. Don't make it perfectly legal (and even market and promote!) the social advantages for me purchasing your product, then turn around and blame me for a global catastrophe you now say I caused (or helped cause) by purchasing your product; then I can better support violator penalties. This would be my message to those in charge who seem suddenly bothered by congestion-induced smog, which is a bothersome, most unhealthy condition, and needs to be fixed. But fix it from the top down, not from the bottom up . . . these leaders know better than that!

I came across a thread recently which discussed emerging scientific evidence of System Warming, as in Solar System. The whole place is heating up, so are we to somehow pick Earth out and say it's those naughty consumers and their naughty gas-guzzling vehicles which are (now) heating up the planet? . .



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by whistleryank3
It's also a bunch of # that people accept "I'm changing the climate" bull as fact when it is only speculation and theory



No you are causing pollution, there is a difference.

I thought they taught this kind of thing in elementary school...

Cars burn a fossil fuel called petroleum. Petroleum is a hazardous liquid that when ignited releases harmful fumes.

Have you ever pumped gas? That smell is killing brain cells.

The whole global warming discussion is irrelevant. You are harming the environment and in turn yourself.

I drive a car so I'm not saying I'm innocent and I do create garbage. I just figured people were actually aware they were doing damage, but I guess not.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
The whole global warming discussion is irrelevant. You are harming the environment and in turn yourself.

blah. blah, blah, blah blah.

Rice paddies harm the environment. Dog poop harms the environment. Cow farts harm the environment.

I'm not buying it. How freakin' vainglorious do these greenies think man is? Man is a bed bug bite on the ass of the world; what we do matters about that much in the scheme of things.

Know what greehouse gases like CO2 do? They make plants and trees grow faster. Duh.

Don't they teach that kind of thing in elementary school?

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I think Sigmund Freud should be included in this debate....

Big fast show-off gas guzzling car = I'm insecure and either have a small penis or am sexually inadequate


[edit on 4-2-2008 by citizen smith]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join