|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 15:46:34 GMT
|
This is easy. Just don't drive in London! I have driven through London twice in my lifetime. That was enough to remind me that it should be avoided at all costs and that's nothing to do with charging! Sorry, old chap but it just doesn't work like that. On some of my jobs I need to carry up to 100kg's of equipment. you tell me how me + my assistant are supposed to move that about on public transport? Not only would it break H&S rules on lifting and carrying, but it would just be unfeasable when all your kit cannot physically be carried by two people. The ONLY solution is to go by car. Unless the company was to provide us with some donkeys and a few illegal immigrants to lug stuff about the capital. Yes, it sucks mightily, but it has improved the traffic situation in central london. However, the idea of rolling it out across the rest of the country WITHOUT lowering fuel duty or 'road tax' is completely farcical. You can't have it both ways! |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 16:05:05 GMT
|
|
I think a lot of Londoners don't actually mind the congestion charge as it stands - it has improved the traffic situation, and the tube / bus system is almost adequate enough to cope (although having done the weekday commute to Oxford Street on the Central line in the height of summer, I really think drastic improvement is still needed!).
But other cities simply don't have a decent enough public transport system to cope. When I lived in Nottingham, the councillors had pound-signs in their eyes when Ken rolled out the Congestion Charge, but if it were introduced there it'd be a completely different situation.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 16:15:18 GMT
|
|
Very true BenzBoy. London has had huge amounts invested in public transport because they realise that you have to offer an alternative. Problem is, in most cases, the car still comes out on top. I'm still amazed that some people would rather sit in a traffic jam than on public transport. I know what I'd rather use if I had to go to London. I wouldn't want to work there though! Or live there...
|
| |
1986 Citroen 2CV Dolly Other things. Check out my Blog for the latest! www.hubnut.org |
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 16:24:29 GMT
|
|
'Unless the company was to provide us with some donkeys and a few illegal immigrants to lug stuff about the capital'
Shhh! Don't go giving Ken ideas. Who knows where he gets his inspirations?
Its a shame he didn't go to Cuba last week, as I was looking forward to all the cabbies having to dump their TX2's and start using multicoloured 1952 Chevrolets with Lada 1200 engines and anti dandruff shampoo for brake fluid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 16:25:49 GMT
|
Back to London. if I lived there I know this: Driving - try not to if I can help it, would probs use car very occasionally, mainly trips up Norf! DLR - Brill loved it Tube - yeah like the tube experience expect when its v busy, and the bomb threats are worrying Bus - only for outta town or to tub station - prob walk that bit if its safe man. Cycling? only in body armour, with a written will LOL! Motorbike. as above. As usual a bit of all, but i'd want a big comfy car to drive on missions back North.  Hmm what would i choose Not every area has the options of London. |
| |
 it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts  |
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 16:54:16 GMT
|
"we", whoever "we" is or are have created a motorised society (and I use the term lightly) where owning a motor car is a prerequisite to maintaining an average standard of living. You can tell people they have to accept a lower standard of living but that wasn't the deal we bought into when we were sold this lifestyle because it was convenient to the developers and manufacturers and bsuiness interests that paid the government special interest groups. Retail parks are all out of town and many businesses have moved to green field lcoations too and the old factories are all being converted into plush "loft living" appartment complexes. For the most part we've had 25+ years of incompetant planning and development and now the answer is to ask people to pay more money to go to work / shop / etc. I'm sorry but I'm not happy to pay for the privilidge. I already pay income tax, NI, VAT, fuel duty, etc etc and get next to bvgger all back for it. I can't even see an NHS dentist FFS. Exactly. We've been sold the car owning way of life and now we are being penalised for it as if somehow it's all our fault. It looks like we'll be picking up the bill for all our carbon emissions and waste now but again this isn't our fault as individuals. All this is totally the reverse of how environmentalism should be encouraged. Rather than being taxed heavily for carrying on how we live we should be rewarded savings for helping make a change. We've had the most significant change in environmental behaviour in motorists over the past 15 years and that's the popularity of diesel engines, why, because of the reduction in running costs. Do celebs buy and drive a Prius because they save the environment or because it raises their profile and value? Sadly the economics are totally against us because, as mentioned, generally taxing people doesn't reduce the problem, it just generates a lot of money. If I choose to buy a Yaris instead of an X5 I want the transport and environmental secretaries at my door on their hands and knees telling me what a great sacrifice I've made. Followed by at least a humble apology on how their predecessors screwed it all up a bit and now I'm paying the price in my freedom of choice. Then I want them to dip into their coffers and give me something back to sooth the pain. I guess the closest we had was the reduced tax LPG but with no long term promises on the price it was hardly surprising the take up was poor. I dunno, maybe we can take a leaf out the smokers books and sue the petrol and car companies for making us all polluters. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 16:59:16 GMT
|
Well said MWF! Edit: Just re-read what Reanimation said.... Quite true, VERY few places have the options that London enjoys. I was in Lancashire (and Yorkshire) recently and the public transport was much, much worse than I expected! I thought parts of Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk were bad - well, at least we don't have bloody great big hills to trek up when there are no buses! |
| |
My fleet:
Suzuki GSX-R600Y SRAD with bald, melted tyres
A borrowed Mondeo
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 17:24:03 GMT
|
When I saw this on the news at lunchtime, my first thoughts were that the 'little man' mentality had been working again in Livingstones head. In a way, though, I can see his logic in 'why do people living in a city need a damn great 4X4?'; answered by some spokeperson who stated people need bigger cars for their families - er excuse me, I bought up two kids and all their paraphanalia in a 1978 Marina saloon, and that is small compared to most modern cars. What has created this market has been pressure from the manufacturers/media on impressionable minds that they 'need' 4X4's or people carriers to drag their 2.4 brats around. We have the same problem around here, with our local school run being a damn nightmare of oversized cars disgorging one miserable brat who then wanders out into the road trying to text their mate who is usually waiting a few yards away.... I digress...as a whole the problems of transport, be they public or private cannot be solved overnight or by taxation, whether stealth or upfront as we have had the best part of fifty years mis-planning of cities and towns by people who clearly have had vested interests in the results and this situation still continues. Where I live is in fact two separate towns, one on an island and the other on the end of a peninsular, but as far as the planners are concerned it is all one connurbation. The fact it has a lake and river splitting it in half makes no difference to these moots; we desperately require a third crossing to relieve the two existing ones so all they did was spend £26M building a new relief road to get you to the traffic jam quicker.......  IF the taxation can be used to upgrade public transport and improve the quality of life in the cities it will be implemented, it cannot be a bad thing, BUT we all know it will be diverted into all sorts of daft plans and ideas, which I do not agree with. As I said, years of planning mistakes have created the environment we have to put up with and unless changes are made at levels that we have no effect over, the 'cock-up and tax'em' will continue.. |
| |
Rover Metro - The TARDIS - brake problems.....Stored
Rover 75 - Barge
MGZTT Cdti 160+ - Winter Hack and Audi botherer...
MGF - The Golden Shot...Stored
Project Minion........
Can you see the theme?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 17:54:58 GMT
|
|
I live in the sticks and own a Discovery. If i need to go into London i will park outside the CC and get the tube. Or get the train in from Banbury. I don't understand why people living in London need 4x4s. To be honest i don't need one in the sticks. If i lived in London i would not own a car. If i had to it would be a Smart. When i lived in Brighton i gave up car ownership as public transport was pretty good and most of my journeys could done on foot. Plus there was nowhere to park. (and it gave me more beer money and i was over the limit most mornings)
We don't have to pay the charge at the moment as my other half has a disabled tax disc. Still rather leave the car and use the tube.
The argument that "we need a big car because we have a family" is rubbish. My Mum cant drive and my dad went AWOL when i was a baby. We survived without a car.
|
| |
BS Nymph
Singer Chamois Coupe
Series 3 Landy
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 18:00:09 GMT
|
|
I really hate the moronic notion that as soon as people start breeding they need to flog their 5-dr hatchback and buy some enormous "multi-purpose vehicle" or SUV. However, I'm of the opinion that people can drive whatever they wish (however idiotic and misguided), and should not be penalised.
It's obvious to most people that all this taxation isn't devised to save the planet, but to line the pockets of the government.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 22:16:48 GMT
|
|
But if you buy something huge, you ARE penalised because it costs more to run anyway! So people with big cars already pay more than those with small cars. What's new?!
Totally agree with your view on Green Taxes though. Guilt trip us into handing over more money to spend on wars, MPs pay rises and expenses and big tents.
|
| |
1986 Citroen 2CV Dolly Other things. Check out my Blog for the latest! www.hubnut.org |
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 22:29:20 GMT
|
Yeah, I wonder what the "carbon footprint" of the Iraq war is!?  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 22:30:08 GMT
|
|
I feel this is relevant to the whole enviro angle:
I can't find more details, but according to CAR magazine, the Range Rover Sport and Toyota Landcruiser are better for the environment than a Prius. The greenest car available to the UK market is the Jeep Wrangler.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 23:28:52 GMT
|
Darren, using that argument, surely the most green car is one that was built ages ago? ;D BTW, I will resist the temptation to post my view about Livingstone (both the man & his policies) as they are highly unprintable....... |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 23:30:29 GMT
|
|
The fact is its 2006 and we cant all start dicking about on buses and bicycles and frigging walking everywhere, how backward is that?
If they really want to save the planet and big cars really are gonna destroy it then all they need to do is say "as of January 1st 2007 no new cars with an engine size of over 2000cc will be sold in the UK" And that would be the end of the matter. And everyone who has a big engined car already can continue to run it without being hassled and picked on every 10 minutes. With no new ones entering the frame and current ones being whittled down until theres just a few yanks, Landies and Mk2 grannies left that do sod all miles a year the problem, if it exists, would be solved.
Its all a crock anyway, if they wanted to stop it, they`d ban it, not tax it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 23:38:29 GMT
|
Its all a crock anyway, if they wanted to stop it, they`d ban it, not tax it. Agreed. It's also not a coincidence that someone has created a large budget deficit (due to imprudent tax & economic management) that now needs filling.....  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 23:40:29 GMT
|
Darren, using that argument, surely the most green car is one that was built ages ago? ;D I reckon an old Land Rover is possibly the most environmentally sound car you could possibly run, or a 2CV... Simple mechanicals, minimal energy used in the construction process (it all bolts together, less welding etc), minimal plastics/non recyclable content, plenty of spares to keep it on the road for longer, etc etc  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006 23:42:18 GMT
|
I reckon an old Land Rover is possibly the most environmentally sound car you could possibly run, or a 2CV... ....or possibly a Volvo Amazon ;D |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...or any car on this forum! ...it's all down to the inclination of the owner to keep it running! |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparenly those Routemaster busses they scrapped were more environmentally friendly overall than the new busses they have instead...
old=evil folks.
|
| |
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
Hmm what would i choose 
