Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News3 mins ago
Has red Ken flipped?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1 305023,00.html
Now I support the �25 idea but why allow small cars in for nowt? surely they will negate any benefit that the current system has delivered. So is it �25 or nothing from October? or have I misunderstood?
Now I support the �25 idea but why allow small cars in for nowt? surely they will negate any benefit that the current system has delivered. So is it �25 or nothing from October? or have I misunderstood?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
2% of vehicles currently paying the C-Charge will qualify for the 100% discount. If you want to cut down CO2 emissions then that figure needs too improve. Mayor Livingstone is simply trying to encourage you to think about emissions next time you buy a car.
If you have a car, I suspect that when you bought it, its emissions levels did not come into your considerations. However, if you had to consider - this car you pay nothing, that car you pay �25, then a lot more people might choose a lower emissions vehicle.
All that said, I would ban SUVs, 4x4s, Chelsea tractors from entering London purely on safety grounds. They are are probably marvelous on a hilltop farm in the Yorkshire dales, but London streets are totally unsuitable for them, and they are a danger to other road users.
If you have a car, I suspect that when you bought it, its emissions levels did not come into your considerations. However, if you had to consider - this car you pay nothing, that car you pay �25, then a lot more people might choose a lower emissions vehicle.
All that said, I would ban SUVs, 4x4s, Chelsea tractors from entering London purely on safety grounds. They are are probably marvelous on a hilltop farm in the Yorkshire dales, but London streets are totally unsuitable for them, and they are a danger to other road users.
this means the congestion charge is now partly an emissions charge, which London needs. It's not like the old peasouper days, I suppose, and not like Hong Kong, but there's still a yellow haze much of the time. It means that a few of the dirtiest vehicles will pay �25, a few of the least pollluting will pay nothing, and the rest will stay as they are. Some of the details are here, if you feel the urge to read them, but no particular models are specified.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestionchar ging/7394.aspx
This won't affect most people but as Gromit says the aim is to make people think about their next purchase: do they really need their smoke machine or would a mid-size saloon do perfectly well? And for those already in smaller cars, they have an incentive to get an even greener one next time they go shopping.
I see someone from the RAC protesting that this will all be too confusing for people. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestionchar ging/7394.aspx
This won't affect most people but as Gromit says the aim is to make people think about their next purchase: do they really need their smoke machine or would a mid-size saloon do perfectly well? And for those already in smaller cars, they have an incentive to get an even greener one next time they go shopping.
I see someone from the RAC protesting that this will all be too confusing for people. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
helpmetoo
Bendy buses were designed for use in towns and cities and their drivers have to pass a special test after taking a training course.
Unfortunately, any idiot who passed his or her test 30 years ago and has totally forgotten the Highway Code can jump into their stupid SUV, 4x4, Chelsea Tractor and reverse over their small children on a weekly basis.
Bendy buses were designed for use in towns and cities and their drivers have to pass a special test after taking a training course.
Unfortunately, any idiot who passed his or her test 30 years ago and has totally forgotten the Highway Code can jump into their stupid SUV, 4x4, Chelsea Tractor and reverse over their small children on a weekly basis.
Just looked up the stats on bendies, and I have changed my mind. Ban them as well
"According to figures slipped out to the London Assembly by TfL itself, bendy buses cause 5.6 pedestrian injuries per million miles operated, compared with
2.6 per million for all other buses. They are involved in 2.62 collisions with cyclists per million miles, compared with only 0.97 per million for all other buses. And they have 153 accidents per million miles, compared with only 87 per million on non-bendy routes.
Bendy buses had 1,751 accidents in the year to April. That is an average of nearly five a day - and more than five accidents a year for every single bendy in the fleet. They injured 90 people, some very seriously, such as a man at Victoria who lost both legs. They also catch fire."
"According to figures slipped out to the London Assembly by TfL itself, bendy buses cause 5.6 pedestrian injuries per million miles operated, compared with
2.6 per million for all other buses. They are involved in 2.62 collisions with cyclists per million miles, compared with only 0.97 per million for all other buses. And they have 153 accidents per million miles, compared with only 87 per million on non-bendy routes.
Bendy buses had 1,751 accidents in the year to April. That is an average of nearly five a day - and more than five accidents a year for every single bendy in the fleet. They injured 90 people, some very seriously, such as a man at Victoria who lost both legs. They also catch fire."
Urban 4x4s are involved in 25 per cent more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage.
Churchill Insurance
4x4 drivers are 27 per cent more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident than saloon car drivers.
Admiral Insurance
If a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed than if they were hit by a saloon car.
New Scientist
Drivers of 4x4s are most likely to have been in an argument with traffic wardens (22 per cent), compared with 6 per cent of saloon car drivers.
RAC Foundation, 2004
Churchill Insurance
4x4 drivers are 27 per cent more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident than saloon car drivers.
Admiral Insurance
If a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed than if they were hit by a saloon car.
New Scientist
Drivers of 4x4s are most likely to have been in an argument with traffic wardens (22 per cent), compared with 6 per cent of saloon car drivers.
RAC Foundation, 2004
This all may or may not be true.
However, the Congestion Charge was supposed to be precisely that � an effort to reduce congestion (which, I believe it has singularly failed to achieve). Mr Livingstone said nothing about pollution when he put the C-Charge in his manifesto. The trouble with the mayor is that he (unashamedly I have to say) takes it upon himself to interfere in matters that are quite outside the remit that most Londoners believe is his.
As far as I am aware driving these large vehicles is not illegal and owners already pay heavily through increased Road Fund Licences and duty on the additional fuel they use. The rhetoric from the mayor suggests that this policy has little to do with environmental issues and more to do with Mr Livingstone�s earlier �politics of envy�.
Readers may also be interested to learn that from the 4th February almost all of Greater London was declared a �low-emissions zone� by the mayor. From that date large vehicles not meeting low emissions standards have to pay a �200 (Yes, Two hundred pounds) daily charge to enter the area. This charge applies 24/7.
The worst thing Londoners ever did was to vote to have a mayor at all, and to elect Mr Livingstone (twice) was foolish in the extreme. Those who lived under his reign as leader of the GLC knew this only too well. They will never be asked again whether they (still) want a mayor as London now has an elected �Regional Assembly� � an institution much loved by the EU and which the good people of the North-East so wisely rejected a few years ago � much to the government�s dismay and surprise. But small matters such as the will of the people are never allowed to get in the way of the European Project and unelected Regional Assemblies have been set up anyway.
Offering Londoners a mayor was simply a way to achieve that assembly and they are now literally paying dearly for their folly.
However, the Congestion Charge was supposed to be precisely that � an effort to reduce congestion (which, I believe it has singularly failed to achieve). Mr Livingstone said nothing about pollution when he put the C-Charge in his manifesto. The trouble with the mayor is that he (unashamedly I have to say) takes it upon himself to interfere in matters that are quite outside the remit that most Londoners believe is his.
As far as I am aware driving these large vehicles is not illegal and owners already pay heavily through increased Road Fund Licences and duty on the additional fuel they use. The rhetoric from the mayor suggests that this policy has little to do with environmental issues and more to do with Mr Livingstone�s earlier �politics of envy�.
Readers may also be interested to learn that from the 4th February almost all of Greater London was declared a �low-emissions zone� by the mayor. From that date large vehicles not meeting low emissions standards have to pay a �200 (Yes, Two hundred pounds) daily charge to enter the area. This charge applies 24/7.
The worst thing Londoners ever did was to vote to have a mayor at all, and to elect Mr Livingstone (twice) was foolish in the extreme. Those who lived under his reign as leader of the GLC knew this only too well. They will never be asked again whether they (still) want a mayor as London now has an elected �Regional Assembly� � an institution much loved by the EU and which the good people of the North-East so wisely rejected a few years ago � much to the government�s dismay and surprise. But small matters such as the will of the people are never allowed to get in the way of the European Project and unelected Regional Assemblies have been set up anyway.
Offering Londoners a mayor was simply a way to achieve that assembly and they are now literally paying dearly for their folly.
New Judge, how do you square your admiration for the will of the people with the inconvenient truth that the will of Londoners is to vote for Livingstone? Londoners do indeed know perfectly well what he's like, they make their democratic choice, and you don't like it. And traffic congestion is noticeably lower (at least in streets where the water board isn't digging to Australia).
Gromit, it was the quotes from Admiral and the RAC I was looking at. The drivers make more mistakes. They are less likely to accept that they have done so.
(I'm not suggesting a reprieve for the 4x4s, just proposing that their owners be sent into exile with them, preferably to the sort of land a 4x4 is suited for. They should all be given a quarter acre in the higlands and told not to come back until they've produced 50 tons of wheat and a herd of 100 cattle.)
(I'm not suggesting a reprieve for the 4x4s, just proposing that their owners be sent into exile with them, preferably to the sort of land a 4x4 is suited for. They should all be given a quarter acre in the higlands and told not to come back until they've produced 50 tons of wheat and a herd of 100 cattle.)
Let's be honest - driving a 4X4 in London is absolutely ridiculous. Unless you have to traverse a big Ribena slick coming over Hampstead Heath, you're never gonna need a 4X4.
They are lifestyle machines. If you want to drive one, feel free - but you will pay through the nose for actively and consciously choosing to drive something so fuel inefficient.
If they want to be selfish, fine. But it'll cost.
I do have concerns though that this policy will hit families who have people movers. They have a genuine need.
They are lifestyle machines. If you want to drive one, feel free - but you will pay through the nose for actively and consciously choosing to drive something so fuel inefficient.
If they want to be selfish, fine. But it'll cost.
I do have concerns though that this policy will hit families who have people movers. They have a genuine need.
This made me laugh a couple of years ago... you couldn't make it up!!!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.