Ive just been on LBC 97.3 talking to James O'Brien about SUVs.
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames which is where i live are introducing a parking tax for SUVs, which will mean Residents Permits will cost £750 a year rather than £50 for a normal car.
James O'Brien is a socialist & advocates this tax, but his argument, like many of these anti-SUV brigade, is flawed.
They talk about emissions, vehicle size, fuel consumption and environmental impact.
This is all nonsense.
A Range Rover does not take up more parking space than an estate car or large saloon.
When i had my Range Rover it was actually shorter in length than my S-class which looked very long & low when they were parked next to eachother.
Fuel economy: Youre going to do bad MPG whatever you drive around here, because its all low-speed, traffic light-laden and heavy city traffic.
Emissions: The Range Rover (and other modern SUVs) are better for the environment than all of Ken's buses and all the older small cars which belch fumes and run inefficiently.
Space: When you drive down a street and there is a car coming the other way, you have to back up whether it is a Range Rover or a Mini.
Why should the local council tell us what kind of car we buy? It is a class tax, by our communist Mayor, and he is picking on this Borough because it is a tory-voting area.
What beggars belief is a radio presenter is able to get on the airwaves and propagate this left-wing nonsense to all & sundry.
Mr O' Brien doesnt even have a driving license, i beleive.
Why dont they get someone who knows what theyre doing to A) present the situation properly on the radio, and B) run the transport section of Richmond council.
I agree that the debate about SUV's based on emissions and pollution grounds is wrong - we have a heck of a lot of big engined, V8, supercharged gas guzzling saloons about nowadays all not far off the two tonne mark and these are no worse than your average SUV.
What I will say though, is about space. They do take up a huge amount of space on the roads due to the width. You know what some of the back roads around London are like more than anyone else, and often I've had to back up or put my car in a dangerous position just to get around one that's stopped/parked.
I just can't see the point of them, I really can't. They all look invariably ugly and they are huge. The argument about needing them for space is totally absurd, as there are many excellent styling Estate cars out there now for space. RS4/RS6, any one? Those are some of my objective reasons for my dislike, as opposed to the anti capitalism/emissions clap trap some of your usual lefty Neanderthals will spout out.
I just don't like them as cars, and I don't think they are suited to the tight, cramped and overcrowded roads of the British Isles. In America, fine - vast, wide roads, not many bends and plenty of space - no problem at all.
In the single track country lanes of Kent, or the tight back roads of London? No thanks.
It's the local council you need to whine about Palmira. Not Ken Livingstone. Stop trying to shift the blame to people who aren't remotely responsible... Knowing your extreme views It won't be long before you try to blame Muslims for the increased parking expense.
When it comes to parking SUVs take up more space and are harder to park, on average. Why not charge higher for SUV parking spaces (£700 more is pushing it though..)?
They're also going to have higher emissions per person no matter what engine is sitting in them. More weight and therefore decreased fuel economy and increased emissions.
Buses despite their emissions (which neither of us have the facts on, you're simply judging by visible output from the exhaust..) are better for the environment than the equivalent SUV. SUV will carry a maximum of 5 people, bus will carry at least 25.
Commercial radio station, don't like what they're saying. Don't listen.
...but who are the authorities to tell us what we can or cant park legitimately park outside our own houses, which are taxed, insured and bought legally?
Why cant they target the illegal drivers who do not insure, tax or register their cars. These people are more likely to cause injury or accident, and their cars are more likely to be poorly maintained or dangerous, or polluting.
This is yet another nonsense tax, aimed at fleecing money from the middle classes. I often find the anti-SUV brigade are the same type of jealous people who cannot afford a choice in their mode of transport, so therefore see fit to exert their jealousy on those who have worked hard, obeyed the law and bought the car of their choice legitimately and drive it legitimately.
I promise you panther, that a new SUV is better for the environment than a 10 year old ordinary car. It is a fact that engine technology has improved, and US emissions regulations which they all have to meet, are strict.
Your diesel Xantia will be worse in terms of emissions than a brand new SUV. In town, where you spend a long time to cover a short distance, MPG is never good, regardless. Those big bendy buses which block all the roads, box-sections and junctions do 5 mpg. If you get caught in a car or SUV blocking a box junction, its £100. If you block it in a bendy bus, then that is somehow ok.
Its another socialist jab at the decent people of this country.
I do not accept that a Range Rover or similar takes up more space on a road than a car. I ride a pushbike around London, and my motorbike if im going on a longer journey. But i should be free to drive a Range Rover if i so wish, and should not be penalised for it.
We are fast becoming a communist nation of bleeding-heart do-gooders who have absolutely no scientific factual knowledge. All these people who are given airtime (James O'Brien, red Ken, that horriffic monster Sian Berry) are all non-drivers.
But do you think Ken would get on a tube or bus like he tells everyone else to? Not a chance.
Thing is Nox, that is your choice. So why shouldnt anyone else have their choice if they see fit? Some people like SUVs, me included, so if they are readily available on the market, why shouldnt we be freely allowed to choose them?
I recently heard the useless Police are not chasing drug dealers now because theyve hit their convictions target.
So, youre actually better off being a drug pusher than an SUV driver, because the government will treat you worse for driving an SUV than they will for pushing heroin. What utter nonsense.
I totally agree Palmy. I was merely highlighting my reasons for my dislike of them.
There are some people around here that spout off all this left wing, easy going claptrap and then clampdown like a tonne of Bricks when it doesn't suit them.
...but who are the authorities to tell us what we can or cant park legitimately park outside our own houses, which are taxed, insured and bought legally?
On public roads.. Really they can tell you where you can and can't park on roads they own all they like. If you don't like what they're telling you, change em next election.
quote:
Why cant they target the illegal drivers who do not insure, tax or register their cars. These people are more likely to cause injury or accident, and their cars are more likely to be poorly maintained or dangerous, or polluting.
They do, you can't get away with not taxing your car nowadays. And if it's found to be uninsured the police have started crushing em IIRC.
quote:
Those big bendy buses which block all the roads, box-sections and junctions do 5 mpg
Any evidence (that can be checked) to back that figure up..
quote:
Your diesel Xantia will be worse in terms of emissions than a brand new SUV. In town, where you spend a long time to cover a short distance, MPG is never good, regardless.
I'm pretty sure my Xantia puts out an auwful lot less CO2 than the 299g/km a TDV8 Range Rover shoves out. It also achieves quite a bit more than 19.6mpg in urban driving. If I wanted to be green I could change to a used Citroen C1 (not new as that's paying for them to use lots of resources building a new car..) which would do 51.4mpg on the urban run and put out 109g/km of CO2.
I use the same high quality diesel as that Range Rover would use, my diesel engine may not be as efficient as a more modern unit, but it'll achieve better fuel economy, which means I'm still consuming less fuel. My car passes its MOT which means it can't be that bad on the emissions front..
quote:
so if they are readily available on the market, why shouldnt we be freely allowed to choose them?
Oh Puh-lease. Whine whine whine. YOU ARE FREE TO CHOOSE THEM. Just don't expect to get cheap parking.
I don't like SUV's either. All arguments aside they DO guzzle more fuel than an equivalent car, they don't handle as well, they add nothing to the driving experience (apart from a lofty perch) and demand too many compromises.
But so what? I couldn't care less. If I PAY for the bloody vehicle AND the fuel AND the (massive amounts of) tax on it I can piss it away all I want.
That's my choice. I rarely agree with Palmy's political "the socialists are out to get me" rants, but he's right here. It's a free country and no amount of negative, opinionated Guardian 'writers' should be allowed to change that.
i have posted much the same before.....i generally dont like these vehicles, but who the hell am i or anyone else to tell anyone what they can or cant spend their hard earned cash on.....to be honest, cities like london will end up with la type smog problems due to the huge amount of vehicles of all types running around in them.....a level playing field is called for here....ban ALL private cars from the city centre unless you can PROVE you NEED one for your work...ie doctor etc....i applaud you for cycling in london palmy, i do the same up here in the frozen north. if public transport was cleaner, more efficient and more accesible to all why would we need our private cars in busy city centres like london, manchester, glasgow etc....??....why dont these so called eco-led councils insist their public transport runs on recycled vegoil from local authority catering venues??..self sustainable and much easier on the environment. i'm sick of the average motorist being taxed out of existance as a fop to political correctness and 'trendiness' when there are so many much more worthwhile ecologically sound steps that can be taken nationally.....i run an old 730 bmw..it gets around 24mpg in mixed running.....keeping it on the road at 24mpg will ultimately do the worlds eco system much less harm than buying a brand new diesel panda or the like....that said, if i ran a nth hand 1 litre supermini it would be doing the world even less harm....but hey, i like air con...and autobox...and electric windows....and cruise control......
The point is not whether you like SUVs or not (and clearly James O'Brien is not a fan) but whether the tax makes sense and is fair.
Its easy enough to target Range Rovers and their owners because they'll never vote labour but one of the principles of taxing is that it must be fair in terms of payment (not in terms of addressing social or environment issues).
Would the LB orof Richmond be having the owner of a Suzuki Jimny with a 1.6 litre engine be paying more tax than the owner of a Bentley GT because their car is classed as being more wasteful?
And even if SUVs aren't particularly welcomed by many people, you still have the democratic right to buy one.
I don't care much for SUVs but thats not reason enough to restrict how people spend their money.
By the way Palmira, you're very wrong about London buses...they're filtered up to the eyeballs with various Euro emissions fittings so there's virtually no harmful emissions.
Jeez, not this argument again. I wholly agree with Palmy here guys (and girls). He is much more aware of the transport issues of central London than most commuters. My only real issue wit hthem are the tiny blonde women who drive tham and cannot park, steer or drive them. I believe they are the new Volvo drivers.
Outside my house is a red route so I have to park the car down a side street, not something I'd like but we all have to make sacrifices. I still have to pay for a parking permit and don't have an allocated space. I don't feel I am being penalised, it is just an inconvenience. Charging 6 times more(Palmy, the typical charges will be around £350 I thought) just because of the type of vehicle it is , is penalising people. Doesn't this charge relate to emissions and engine size? Suerly that means if you're driving a 3.5 litre turbodiesel SUV or a 3.5 litre turbodiesel conventional estate then the charge is the same. We all have a choice, we al lhave a brain and a heart. It is up to us how we choose exercise our decision making. yes, for some a C1 would make perfect sense (although I would argue do they really need a car if they are driving someting so small and pointless, or god forbid one of those Toyota Piouses) and for others, a Disco is the right choice.
I suppose all of these do-gooder lentil eating Guardian reading anti SUV brigade people would rather us all have one choice of car from the government and be done with it.
To re-itterate previous comments, many are used for much more than the school run and quite a few of their owners around go into the country on business and leisure most weekends. If they were seen in the middle of the Cotswolds, no-one would bat an eyelid.
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames which is where i live are introducing a parking tax for SUVs
That statement is absolute and complete twaddle. I suggest you go back, revisit what they are ACTUALLY doing then post something which starts with the truth.
To re-itterate previous comments, many are used for much more than the school run and quite a few of their owners around go into the country on business and leisure most weekends.
Ah yes, the gymkhana!
This SUV tax has absolutely nothing to do with cars, choice or anything else posted here. At the last local elections, Richmond council changed from Conservative to Liberal Democrat control.
Two things happen when the lib dems win a council seat. (1) All your correspondance comes written in about 7000 different languages; and (2) You get taxed more to pay for all the printing ink they used in accomplishing (1).
Taxes are unpopular, and in this example its easy to see why. Being forcibly liberated from your hard-earned for what is rarely any sort of tangible return (unless you speak only Magyar and Urdu) is akin to being burgled. Usually, that'll p*ss you off.
So if you're the Lib Dems, a political party that exists only because people like to use them as a way of complaining about the other parties in local elections; you have to be extremely careful when raising your printing ink money so as not to alienate your fragile support. Thankfully (if you're a Lib Dem) this is easy, you just tax people who'd never vote for you anyway .... Better still (if you're a Lib Dem) identifying these people is even easier: They all drive X5's.
So probably the best thing you can do if you live in Richmond and own a Range Rover is, bizarrely, start voting Lib Dem. Become important to them and they'll soon stop shafting you.
....of course, you could always just buy a house with a driveway ....
_________________________ "Forward", he cried, from the rear, and the front rank died. And the General sat, and the lines on the map moved from side to side.
Palmira, the parking charges are on high CO2 emission vehicles NOT SUVs per se. So if you have a Lexus hybrid SUV you probably wouldn't pay anymore (also you won't pay the congestion charge ).
As a comment to the general world, what is it with left and right wingers (aka nutters)? Do they undergo intensive training for grasping the wrong end of the stick or something?
Thanks, Mustrum, I've just trawled through all of the posts and finally come to yours which actually says its a tax on high co2 and NOT Suvs alone!
As far as I'm concerned, why not? The place most emmissions are produced is in slow moving or stationary traffic, which occurs in towns and cities so if you want to reduce emmisssions and try to clean up the air then you try to get people to swap to smaller vehicles - makes perfect sense.
I saw a woman interviewed yesterday beside her Range Rover who said "I need it because I've got two children!" Pardon?? Two kids? Err, so have I, and I live in the country, but I've never needed anything bigger than a Vectra!
If you don't like it then move to somewhere else.
As regards buses - Pally, you are wearing a bit thin spouting off the rubbish about fuel consumption - yes they are more thirsty, but as someone else said they carry about 10 times more people which, to use basic maths, means that they are more efficient!
As Nox has said before the roads in this country (especially in urban areas) just aren't built for some of the monsters we are seeing now.
The place most emmissions are produced is in slow moving or stationary traffic
No it isn't. it's inside industrial plants, office buildings and blasting out the back of jet-engined airliners. I think some of the frustration here is that the motorist, who is responsible for a tiny proportion of overall CO2 emissions, gets clobbered for being a car driver whilst the industrialist, who is responsible for an enormous proportion of overall CO2 emissions, gets praised for being a growth driver.
The Government (national, local, whatever) bows to the pressure exerted by corporate interest groups and makes up for the lost revenue by walloping comparitively weak individuals.
Not fair.
_________________________ "Forward", he cried, from the rear, and the front rank died. And the General sat, and the lines on the map moved from side to side.
why does the media concentrate on 4x4's & not all cars with larger engines .. mad agree with mr palm tree its unfair to pick on them BUT he must agree that while many cars are longer & heavier the sheer width of larger suv [4x4's] can cause problems in towns & cities. one thing makes me smile though, news reports on outside broadcasts in recent days refer to gas guzzlers & what drives by in the background that the camera zooms into ?? yes that it a 42mpg[av] honda cr-v oh yes, not to forget cars dont really belong in most town/ city streets - ban the lot & walk + use buses I say
-------------------------------------------- Two junior particle physicists were dismissed today after using the Large Hadron Collider to smash conkers into each other at near-light speed.
The place most emmissions are produced is in slow moving or stationary traffic
No it isn't.
think you were quite aware what i meant, Boig.
Though I do agree with regard to the "other" emmissions - does that mean we've got to stop going on holiday by plane - or should we do it more so the world heats up and then we don't have to go abroad for the sun at all?!
I was in Bruges last month and our taxi driver mentioned that SUV's like the VW Tourag cost €5,000 for an initial Registration and then another €3,000 for Road Tax each year.
I have to admit that I am not a fan of SUV's and would not buy one myself but I know lots of people like 'em. Knowing the DNA profile of this government, watch out.
Taxing stuff that people want/need/are addicted to is hardly a new thing.
Look at the huge taxes levied on fags, people still buy them, doesn't put them off.
I think what they are proposing in Richmond is a good thing and will probably spread to other areas. Chances are though, that in Richmond, one of the most affluent areas of the country, people will just stump up the cash and there will be as many high CO2 producing cars on the streets.
Still, it mean they will have less dosh to spend on flights around the globe - one form of transport that really could be doing with higher levels of taxation.
watch out.