Its a sign of the times I think, we all know the resources are getting lower in supply all the time so to be fair yes the ones who consume the most should be tried to be persuaded to lower their consumption, now if that means making them pay a large amount of money to enter the capital city then I dont see a problem.
Thanks Ken!
- Thread starter OllyM
- Start date
Another hit in the pocket for hauliers unfortunate enough to go into central London - We don't go there because its fun in a 53ft rig, alas, its where whatever given delivery needs to goto. 
Tax Tax & More tax, ahh, the joys of motoring!
Tax Tax & More tax, ahh, the joys of motoring!
The charge in question does not address this in the slightest though. It charges someone in a high consumption car more even if they do less driving in the charge area.
It's nearly as foolish as the higher road tax for cars that tend to get used less...
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
You think thats daft?
If I wish to drive into London in my BMW 530i Sport with a manual gearbox, I must pay £25 a day.
If PeterNem wishes to drive into London in his BMW 530i Sport with an Automatic gearbox, which produces something like 30g/km of C02 more than me, he must pay only £8 a day.
Why? Becuase although otherwise utterly identical, his car was produced before March 31st 2001. This means he pays less road tax as well.
HOW GREAT.
not at peak times you wont.
It seems pointless though. Ok, so you're keeping the car out of london but its still polluting and causing congestion else where.
This isn't as daft as what my local council is thinking of doing. They want to introduce residents permit parking on my road, but only during peak commuting time in the morning (something like 0730 to 0930). And to make matters worse, they are planning on charging for these parking permits based on CO2 output. Can anyone see the problem here?
Yes, if I decide to leave my car at home and take public transport to work, then I have to pay for a permit. But, if I decide to drive to work each day, then I do not need to pay for a permit. So how on earth do they justify eco- charging based on CO2?
Also, if I decide to have a big gas guzzler which I drive only a few miles at the weekends for pleasure, then I have to pay a large permit charge, but if I have an average car which I commute long distances in every day then I have to pay less (or even nothing if I always leave for work before 0730).
I may write to them asking if I can get a free permit as my car produces no CO2 while it is parked, but don't think I'll get very far.
Yes, if I decide to leave my car at home and take public transport to work, then I have to pay for a permit. But, if I decide to drive to work each day, then I do not need to pay for a permit. So how on earth do they justify eco- charging based on CO2?
Also, if I decide to have a big gas guzzler which I drive only a few miles at the weekends for pleasure, then I have to pay a large permit charge, but if I have an average car which I commute long distances in every day then I have to pay less (or even nothing if I always leave for work before 0730).
I may write to them asking if I can get a free permit as my car produces no CO2 while it is parked, but don't think I'll get very far.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
Balls. It's all cobblers. The planet will be ok. The planet will look after itself. We're not really doing that much damage with cars, besides cars have become more efficient and cleaner. What's with this psuedofascism which is brewing? Why are we being dictated what we can or cannot drive? We pay for it through the nose already with tax, insurance, petrol etc... If they want to clean up london, get rid of all the big busses or make them electric and stop big trucks from going through it. Problem solved. It's pathetic. I don't ever want to own a big SUV-type car (though this is not the only type of car targeted - I mean a mondeo or a bmw? Hell I'm sure a lot of them are more efficient/clean than most of the MPs cars!), however that's not the point, this is just setting a precedent. We pay so much for cars now that it's in our best interest and makes the most financial sense to use them.
I really hate that tool.
edit: bunch o' tree hugging hippies
I really hate that tool.
edit: bunch o' tree hugging hippies
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
This really makes me want to buy a big gas guzzling V8 
I love my CO2 sticker too - I might try and get a bigger one 
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/sticker.html
It's a good website actually.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
Lots of interesting facts.
All this CO2 stuff is nonsense, we should be worried about other things - like moving over the nuclear power and more efficient recycling etc... none of this tree hugging rubbish which is just a tax and does **** all for the environment except a short term jolly for paper pushers.
I love my CO2 sticker too - I might try and get a bigger one http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/sticker.html
It's a good website actually.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
Lots of interesting facts.
All this CO2 stuff is nonsense, we should be worried about other things - like moving over the nuclear power and more efficient recycling etc... none of this tree hugging rubbish which is just a tax and does **** all for the environment except a short term jolly for paper pushers.
Older cars dont have emissions ratings though.
I pay about £195 for my 2000 S2000 in road tax. A 2008 S2000 would have to pay £400.
Identical cars, just mine is bigger than 1600cc, the 2008 one is 237g/km. This obviously would mean I pay £8 where as the newer model pays £25. I guess the newer models must over 3 times longer as they 'congest' 3 times as much ?
I don't really care about emissions from the combustion of oil - it makes no difference, oil is a supply side limited resource and as such the CO2 associated with it is not affected by demand side actions like this. Globally, all the oil that can be burnt, will be burnt, as fast as possible.
Why I support this is that is increases the propensity for people to buy and drive efficient cars - therefore reducing the countries oil consumption and as we are now a net importer of every expensive oil reducing our national consumption improves out balance of payments and the economy.
It would be extremely foolish to maintain high oil consumption as we rely increasingly on imports – in competition with cash rich countries like China with they balance of payments surpluses.
Why I support this is that is increases the propensity for people to buy and drive efficient cars - therefore reducing the countries oil consumption and as we are now a net importer of every expensive oil reducing our national consumption improves out balance of payments and the economy.
It would be extremely foolish to maintain high oil consumption as we rely increasingly on imports – in competition with cash rich countries like China with they balance of payments surpluses.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
That's what he's basing it on though (CO2). It's unfair to tax people just because they want a type of car. I agree if we can make cars more efficient then great, but efficiency doesn't necessarily = CO2. My car does well over 210g/km of CO2, but I can achieve well over 35mpg if I drive sensibly and other more efficient cars produce maybe more CO2 and yet return more miles, so ecconomy is different to CO2 emissions. Heck there are some hybrid cars that have a huge 3.5L V6 but have some batteries, they still produce "high" levels CO2.
Yes the consumption of oil is high, but the accountability for cars is quite minimal in comparison to powerstations, manufacturing and other processes around the world.
Yes the consumption of oil is high, but the accountability for cars is quite minimal in comparison to powerstations, manufacturing and other processes around the world.
Last edited: