So, from reading this, does anyone think I would be better off getting rid of my BMW 323i and getting something a bit bigger and more powerful whilst I can still afford it? :-)
Blue
|
One thing Richmond do have a right to think about is space on the road. I could see the logic of charging for parking according to the space occupied. If you can get two Smart cars in the space taken up by one gas guzzler, then perhaps the charge should be half say.
Forget about emissions, CO2, carbon particles, engine size, etc. Just charge road tax and parking by the foot.
|
At the end of the day it's about choice.
IF you must live in Richmond, live with the consequences.
IF you want to live in a new house built on a flood plain, accept you may not get insurance and will be flooded.
IF you want a big car, you will be taxed for it.
The writing has been on the wall for years about big cars and running costs and taxation.
It is obvious the way trends are going. OBVIOUS> that is to anyone who stops to think - for at least 5 minutes.
So I read the debate with interest and have ZERO sympathy with anyone who complains.
I practice what I prach.. a Yaris diesel is easy to park, cheap to run .. and yes it would take 1 adult and 4 kids to school easily if needed.. my wife did that for 10 years with her peugeot 106 diesel under our local informal car pooling for school run arrangements.
So any talk of needing a BIG car for 3 kids is just carp.. a small car can work.. but it's all a matter of choice and living with the consequences...
madf
|
|
Good for you Madf! But when my Vectra 2.2 is put in the same catagory as these so called 'ga guzzlers', I think I've got every right to complain!!
|
Midlife, that's exactly why I pointed out at the end of my post that there is scope for more VED CO2 bands. Currently the top band G is "over 225g/km". But there could be a Band H from 226 to 260g/km, a band J from 261 to 300g/km, and super CO2 band for over 300g/km. The naughty and very confusing aspect of all this is the way Chancellor Brown failed to mention in his budget speech that everyone with a post March 2001 car that emits 186g/km to 225g/km faced a £25 increase in VED. That band covers most Mondeo size cars.
HJ
|
|
|
Well said madf.
Many of the comments I written are frankly infantile - "I want a big car and I've got the money so I'm going to have one and all councils are loony left, jealous of me etc etc". Well, buy a big car, pay the taxes and stop moaning.
I have three cars, all 2000cc+. One is Skyline GT-R with twin-turbo, 400+bhp. It costs a lot to insure and maintain, and I don't use it often. I pay more road tax than someone who drives a 1.0litre Micra and I only use it at weekends - but I don't keep moaning about it, I think of it as the luxury that it really is. The current political situation with regard to large vehicles is obvious to all, and there is little to choose between Labour, Conservatives and Liberals. If you want to run a large car then be prepared to pay for it and stop jumping up and down like a spoilt child in a tantrum. 90% of the population (especially in London) can get by with something a lot smaller than a 3.0 4x4.
Hopefully this might spawn interest in Kei-cars - having seen some of these running around in Tokyo that would be no bad thing - some of them look tremendous fun and highly suited to city driving.
|
The problem with these little cars is they get smashed to bits by speed humps. London is now crawling with G-Wizz electric cars and every single one of them I have seen appears to be damaged in some way.
HJ
|
The problem with these little cars is they get smashed to bits by speed humps. London is now crawling with G-Wizz electric cars and every single one of them I have seen appears to be damaged in some way.
Well as many many houses in Richmond / Bamberland not have an off road parking space, expect new council permits to allow pavement humps so that cables can be safely run from the house to recharge these crawling mobile chicanes.
Or maybe all the lamp posts are already being modified to have recharging sockets.
I am comfortable with keeping an older vehicle on the road.
|
Politicians need ways to raise (ever more!) revenue that are:
a. reasonably acceptable to most voters
b. simple enough to explain and collect
c. encourages "desirable" behaviour
Increasingly, taxes on "gas guzzler" cars pass tests a and c. Unfortunately test b means that it isn't possible to allow for all of whole-life energy costs, emmisions per km, total mileage covered, driving style etc. Therefore we end up with CO2 emissions plus fuel tax plus VAT on new cars as (not unreasonable) proxies.
Not sure what would be better given all of a-c above. However 225gms is much too low to start the top band!
|
I should have mentioned that for 'cars' registered between March 2001 and February 2006 the top band starts at 186g/km. The top band starting at 226g/km is currently only for 'cars' registered from March 2006 onwards. And that makes it doubly deceitful for the £25 hike for most cars to have been obscured by the £45 hike for 226g/km cars in the budget speech.
HJ
|
What is this tax on the poor policy that London now has ?
An £8 congestion charge has far more impact on the poor than the rich, from an affordable or percentage of income perspective. Now a flat parking charge which will again impact the family wiht a single wage earner more than it will impact the single, wealthy person.
Seemingly Livingstone for one has moved away from his socialist principles and it appears the the SDP are right up there with him.
|
Seemingly Livingstone for one has moved away from his socialist principles and it appears the the SDP are right up there with him.
Ho ho ho. YEEEE haw haw haw haw....
|
... it appears the the SDP are right up there with him.
>>
sdp ? who that be, then ?
anyway here are some cynical views on all these global-warming, pollution, congestion-charging etc. political debates:
1. for some reason, the uk and some local politicians (e.g. richmond and red-ken) seem to belive that the uk is to blame for the world's ills - whether it is to do with pollution or palestine or kashmir or darfur or the starving poor of africa.
2. for some reason, the same people beleive that by implementing self-harming measures in the uk (which impact severely on the population here), we can do the world a lot of good even though on the world scale they are no more than a pin-prick.
3. those politicians want to raise more revenue, and so they really they do not want to see a reduction in the usage of their target vehicles. their policies mean that the rich can afford to carry on with their usual activities wheareas the real financial impact is felt by the working class who need their vans and trucks and 4x4s to go about their labouring work. (the middle classes happily commute by trains and buses).
4. in the meantime, china and india keep adding who-knows-how-many new dirty-coal power stations a week. and all the meat eating mankind keep destroying forests to grow more feed and pastures for their sheep and cattle which belch ever more damaging methane in to the atmosphere.
5. to really save the planet, we need to give up our wasteful western habits and adopt yoga and start walking again.
6. finally, let me give you two examples of the results of the policies of two-jags prescott. his aim was to prevent out-of-town shopping centres so that traffic would be reduced, and to encourage the development of existing town centres with affordable housing. well, in the town centres of feltham and walton-on-thames, two new massive shopping centres have been built with hundreds of flats. when the developments are complete, the impact on traffic heading to/from heathrow is estimated to add 10 to 20 minutes extra for those living in these towns. even if the planners knew this would happen, it was probably considered a "welcome" side effect if it meant more pain and inconvenience for the motorist.
|
I agree they are cynical.
" for some reason, the same people beleive that by implementing self-harming measures in the uk (which impact severely on the population here), we can do the world a lot of good even though on the world scale they are no more than a pin-prick"
So we do nothing then?
"1. for some reason, the uk and some local politicians (e.g. richmond and red-ken) seem to belive that the uk is to blame for the world's ills - whether it is to do with pollution or palestine or kashmir or darfur or the starving poor of africa"
So the Uk had no role to play in Kashmir or Palestine. Of course they were totally blame free weren't they.
|
|
The problem with these little cars is they get smashed to bits by speed humps. London is now crawling with G-Wizz electric cars and every single one of them I have seen appears to be damaged in some way.
They look silly too, even worse than Smart.
|
They look silly too, even worse than Smart.
That's putting it mildly - the one pictured with the aforementioned Mr Gascoigne in the Telegraph this morning looked like a badly-constructed early prototype of something. When I was a young lad I made things out of Lego bricks that looked better than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>Good for you Madf! But when my Vectra 2.2 is put in the same catagory as these so called 'ga guzzlers', I think I've got every right to complain!!<<
Exactly MLC. I think my car is in the same bracket as a 530 BM, a GS300 Lexus and a 3.0 X5!
|
It seems there is a more fundemental flaw in the thinking of Richmond Council.
Simply put this type of charge is illegal, councils are only allowed to cover their admin costs for permit issue.
See here for more information
tinyurl.com/v9qty
Given there is a successful historic appeal against a council that did not comply things arent looking good for Richmond.
BTW have they considered dumping the Mayoral limo in the "green war"?
As always
Mark
|
>>It seems there is a more fundemental flaw in the thinking of Richmond Council.
>>Simply put this type of charge is illegal, councils are only allowed to cover their admin costs for permit issue.
Mark, this is a very interesting twist to the discussion. As Neil Herron says "it is illegal under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act for a local authority to make a profit from the provision of such residents parking places. A levy to cover the administration cost is all that can be charged."
I feel sure this will be hitting the news tonight and no doubt some new law will be introduced so this "trial" in Richmond can start.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
