I have no problem with SUV drivers or drivers of big cars. I actually quite like the Rangie. I do think that the council has got it wrong. Increasing parking permit prices for higher polluting vehicles is just nonsence as you are penalising people when they arent even poluting (as far as i know when its parked and not running there is no environmental impact - anyone want to argue otherwise?)

Im not comfortable with a council that thinks it has the right to virtually force individuals to buy and run a certain type of car. Im not sure it will come off, I can smell a legal challenge coming

Glimpse of things to come if the Liberals get in. This is a tax on the poor, unintentional, but its there none the less. Like the congestion charge.

A factoid off the telly news yesterday. If the magic wand was to be waved and wishes granted and all UK emissions zeroed out. The future emerging economies of the far east will wipe the gain out in a matter of days. Now, been having a look and cannot find a text quote on the news site to the same.

I have to admit that I have two conflicting views when it comes to SUV's.

One of them is that people should be able to buy what they want and that is a fairly strong view.

The other is that very few people need this sort of thing and seeing them in London annoys me whereas if I met one on a Yorkshire Lane near our cottage I would smile. You see the farmer may actually need these. It's the difference between seeing an Eskimo in the artic in a fur coat and seeing a wealthy woman on Regent Street in one .

Now she does not need it but here I am writing a post on a £3,000 Graphics Workstation. Do I need it? Not at all, but it is nice to have .

I am stationed here on the Dutch/German border and loads of my fellow Army officers and NCOs drive SUVs in the flattest place on earth. Nobody really needs them but it provides them with a bit of enjoyment and as Palmira would say 'it is their money'.

Should they be banned or taxed out of existence? I don't think so but I think they should be banned from school areas as they cause visibility problems and can be very difficult to manoeuvre in tight areas. There have been more than a few accidents with them so many schools are insisting that they be reversed into parking places.

Basically the main source of anger concerning SUVs revolves around conspicuous consumption . Spend your money on a good school for your kids, a period cottage, a nice computer and few will object but the SUV is in your face . It offends people.

My advice to those who like this type of motor is go for it now as the option for them may disappear very soon. They seem to falling into disfavour with the powers that be everywhere. Whether this is right is another matter entirely.

Avro in Bruggen

The whole thing is a farce.

It's just the politics of envy IMO.

Another thing; they are not SUV's. Something that weighs over 2 tonnes & is as tall as the Post Office Tower in London is not sporty!!!!!!

Yet again yes SE, youre right, it is the politics of envy. Idiot socialists who have no life or job so they mess about taxing you and me and everyone that is more successful than the hopeless excuses for human beings that they are.

As Big G knows (and does himself) I ride a pushbike for transport. But i also understand a sight more about cars & SUVs than these desk-bound lentil-munchers.

It has been correctly posted on here that if it were down to the government, they would have everyone driving exactly the same car handed out by the government - as in communist Russia for many years was the case.

I have a driveway and a garage, therefore do not need a parking permit.

But my point is this:

An SUV does NOT take up more parking space than a car.

An SUV does NOT pollute whilst it is parked, because the engine is off.

An SUV is LESS harmful to the environment than old-tech cars or public transport.

These are FACTS. London Buses belch thick acrid black smoke, i see the "bus jams" on Oxford Street and TCR every day where it is bumper-to-bumper buses in both directions at around 5pm, and believe me it is an unpleasant sight and smell.

Cars only account for 15 percent of emissions/greenhouse gases and pollution in all of the UK.

Last night there was a documentary about the best & worst places to live in the UK. The place with the worst air quality was North East Lincolnshire (Grimsby, Immingham etc) because of its heavy industrial areas.

London wasnt even mentioned. In London the air quality has improved over the years, yet the traffic has got heavier. This is because no longer are households allowed to burn smokey fuels, or factories allowed to emit waste into the atmosphere.

The socialist government, which is what Lib Dems are, are car-haters and affluence-haters. Theyve managed to weasel their way into our affluent borough and attack our good people from within. This is a beautiful and friendly place to live, where there is very low crime and most people are wealthy - a 3 bedroom terraced house over the road sold last week for £916,000. The no-hopers are jealouse of our hard efforts to live a good life, and want to stop our liberties.

I wonder if i had come to the UK illegally (which i did NOT) and then do alot of crime, would i get sent to a detention hotel and given a free chauffeur driven car?

Probably.

But woe betide you if you want to live well & be civilised.

Good grief - the world has gone mad.

By the way - today i just bought a silver M-B S500 LWB for work.

I shall not be parking that on the street either.

It was interesting when i told James O-Brien that i used to park my Range Rover next to the Mercedes, and it was actually shorter than the Mercedes, so why do you call it a "juggernaut"?

He couldnt answer - instead went off on a childish rant of insults about SUV drivers being arrogant and nasty people. What a complete moron.

buying ANY new car is more harmful to the environment than keeping an old 'un going......and i must admit, i saw that terrible programme last night and did have a giggle at the fact that two london boroughs were the very worst places to live in the uk.....as for looking at people in suvs and wondering if they 'need' the capabilities of the vehicle, that is one of the most spurious arguments ever...its like wondering if the owner of the 200k 12mpg supercar 'needs' its capabilities....obviously not, yet people never seem to target drivers of gorgeous, but ultimately equally pointless supercars and ubersaloons.....the suv is an easier target....surely the owners of these kind of vehicles already choose to pay a ridiculous amount of tax at the pumps by the mere fact that their cars get such crap mpg...i advocate education for drivers about when they do and dont NEED to be using their cars, education to the chattering classes about when they do or dont NEED to replace their cars in the first place....its the consumerism gone mad that causes most of the pollution, not the vehicles themselves.....i also advocate freedom of choice and the option to drive what we want.....but with power comes responsibility.....if you choose to drive a 12 mpg supercar or behemoth suv, dont take it in town centres etc...where you will get 12mpg, use it on the open road where the mpg and emissions figures will be much more appropriate to the long term survival of unsuataineable fuels and the eco system......

...and palmy, if you want a brown paper bag to put over your head while you drive the merc, i'l send you a nice personalised one......after all, you surely dont want people to see a well dressed man around town like yourself driving such an overtly bling and ugly car...do ya....????.....enjoy...

lol.

the new s-class mercs look so butch and muscly. they just dont have the same "sleek" look to em anymore..

i want a brand new supercharged rangie

quote:

Originally posted by Tomark:
This is a tax on the poor,

How on earth do you work that one out? If they can afford to buy and run a 4x4, or any other big car they certainly aint poor!

BTW BigB they seem to be targeting ALL large engined cars, not just SUVs, thats why Palmys getting so wound up - thats all he owns!

...and generally what i own...but MUCH older....and i live in a civilised part of the world, so it aint an issue.....

quote:

Originally posted by b308:

quote:

Originally posted by Tomark:
This is a tax on the poor,

How on earth do you work that one out? If they can afford to buy and run a 4x4, or any other big car they certainly aint poor!

BTW BigB they seem to be targeting ALL large engined cars, not just SUVs, thats why Palmys getting so wound up - thats all he owns!

Easy. Not all old cars are expensive. They also want to export this mad scheme to the rest of us. The well off can afford to swallow the cost, the rest have to sell a car that is no longer desirable and try to buy a newer car to beat the parking fine. OK if you can afford it, tax on the less well off if you cannot.

hello Avro.....enjoy your afghan trip?

The issue with SUV's seems to me to be a press-originated band wagon.

SUV's are easily identifiable.....easy to villify...and are symbolic of the sort of consumerism which we love to despise, yet perhaps envy?

The Richmond issue is one of parking permits costed and issued on emmissions....the SUV issue is simply one which the tub-thumpers have latched onto...and Palmy was right to try and steer that emotive argument back on track.

What perhaps Richmond ought to have done, is base the cost of the residents' permit on the results of RECENT emmissions tests, as done by the MoT testers??

then, perhaps, a top-of-the-range Range Rover with its V8 engine might well end up costing more than a Vectra....but would it cost more than a jag?

what that might achieve is a general trend towards owners either seeking to ensure their motor is in tune and up to scratch....or to persuade punters to buy a smaller car?
Older cars, properly in tune, might well prove to pump out fewer emissions than some new cars!

Either way, the end product of this policy will achieve cleaner air....

we already pay our road tax according to either engine size, or level of emissions?

This is little different....just a shame the wagoneers equate noxious motors with SUV's?

How far have Citroen got in persuading the London Council, whatever they're now called...to allow the C1 free entry, since its emissions are lower than those of a Prius....the bugbear being, it works off petrol?

Not sure I entirely agree with you - the intitial cost of the car mey be reletavely cheap, but the running costs are, by definition, larger - a big car has bigger tyres, more cylinders, worse fuel consumption, the list is endless - therefore my statement still stands.

Also the people we are talking about here DO have the money or they wouldn't be able to afford to live in this district, therefore it is NOT a tax on the poor.

I think Tomark was viewing the whole thing fromm the viewpoint of the policy becoming a precursor for the rest of the country?

Local motor taxes?

like a lot of other countries?

To be fair, QJ, the BBC report actually says its a proposed tax on LARGE vehicles, not SUVs - the SUVs was Palmy's and some of the press's addition.

Also having read the Richmond Council site it IS based on the Government Tax bands with the older vehicles put into two bands in a similar way to the existing Licence set up - which is probably the fairest it could be done.

think we're crossing posts here, QJ, read one up for the last one!!

Correct QJ. Just been looking at a Ford Fiesta. 2ltr petrol gets you a 30% increase on your existing charge.

quote:

Also having read the Richmond Council site it IS based on the Government Tax bands with the older vehicles put into two bands in a similar way to the existing Licence set up - which is probably the fairest it could be done.

which is perhaps where the system fails?

Just because a vehicle fell within a certain tax band when new, doesn't mean it will continue to maintain those emissions standards?

my thoughts centred on a more accurate measurement...ie, apply for one's Permit, submitting a RECENT emissions printout as per MoT...then get charged according to THAT evidence?

then the age of a motor might not be held against it?
( a mechanically- competent person may well be able to achieve very good emmissions from an old car...so why should age be a penalty, given the other evidence in support of running older cars?)

The only proper test would have to be done on a more regular basis than yearly - if the car is serviced regularly its ok, but how many people do you know that skimp on servicing - and the less servicing it gets the more out of tune it becomes and the more polluting.

Then who would pay for all these checks? Easiest and cheapest method is to use the tax bands - not ideal but cost effective.

Quite honestly the only people this will affect is those that can't really afford to run a large car but do simply because they feel they have to "keep up with the Joneses" - they need to get a life and stop worrying about what they think everyone else is thinking about them.

If it means that large cars become white elephants, then I wouldn't feel particularly sad about it, and I suspect that BigB can't wait to get his hands on a cheap one!

quote:

Then who would pay for all these checks?

the same person who pays for the MoT?


The VOSA are well into checking folks motors over...any falling short, and the info can be passed onto the relevant authority??

quote:

Easiest and cheapest method is to use the tax bands - not ideal but cost effective.

correct...but lowers it all down to 'cheap political fix'??

would pre-'72 cars get a free pass?

like all good pensioners?

if so......what about a concerted effort to make the Series one Land-rover a must-have fashion icon?

just a wind-up, of course....

quote:

Originally posted by queenjane:
would pre-'72 cars get a free pass?

like all good pensioners?

if so......what about a concerted effort to make the Series one Land-rover a must-have fashion icon?

just a wind-up, of course....

With a WW2 Jeep as second car?

Or perhaps one of those Rover Personel Carriers - hey, lets go the whole hot and use a proper tractor with a trailer with seats for the kids!

Hog! - not Hot!! - oh why won't they let us correct posts?!