Home Politics and Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

Chelsea tractors to be charged £25 congestion charge

SystemSystem Posts: 8,649 Staff Team
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5171850.stm
The congestion charge for drivers of petrol-guzzling cars could rise to £25 - three times the current charge.
London Mayor Ken Livingstone has said he wants a sliding scale, with lower charges for low-emission vehicles and higher charges for "Chelsea tractors".

He said if his plans got wider backing, discounts could be in place by 2008, and higher charges by 2010.

A good move IMO.

This is actually based on CO2 emmisions so a few smaller 4x4s would be exempt, and a few state cars, saloons and high performance vehicles would be included.

I would have preferred all 4x4s to be slapped with the £25 charge- or even better to be banned from city centres altogether. At the end of the day Chelsea will be inside the CC area from next year, which means Chelsea tractor owners will get a 90% discount on the charge. But anyway, it's a step in the right direction.

*waits for the usual right wing tirade about curtailing of "rights"*
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wonder how much he'll charge diesel spewing taxis?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    I wonder how much he'll charge diesel spewing taxis?

    A large majority of taxi's are LPG, it makes sense economically to them because they cover so many miles.

    As to this, its bonkers, not only will the majority of them live in the area and therefore not be charged this, but they already get penalised for having them, this isnt the way to do it. Up the road tax for them certainly, make fuel more expensive, but this is bonkers.

    Edit : anyway, this is a local issue for local people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    A large majority of taxi's are LPG, it makes sense economically to them because they cover so many miles.
    You can't use LPG in diesel engines. What are you on about?

    ETA - they don't pay the VAT on their diesel though.
    As to this, its bonkers, not only will the majority of them live in the area and therefore not be charged this, but they already get penalised for having them, this isnt the way to do it. Up the road tax for them certainly, make fuel more expensive, but this is bonkers.
    What is it anyway - a congestion charge or a pollution charge?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Kentish wrote:
    You can't use LPG in diesel engines. What are you on about?

    Erm, sorry? That comment makes little sense! Why would you put LPG in a diesel engine? He didn't say that...
    Kentish wrote:
    ETA - they don't pay the VAT on their diesel though.

    What is it anyway - a congestion charge or a pollution charge?

    Pollution now, I guess. Either way, I agree with this. Far as I am concerned, you should ONLY have a 4x4 SUV whatever, if you have a good reason and need to go off road. There is NO REASON otherwise. It just makes you look a tit.

    If you need 7 seats (I rarely se a full SUV) get an MPV. If you don't, get a smaller car. What is the point in having an uneconomical, ugly, top heavy and blatantly unsafe to other road users and pedestriants in ways a car never could be, huge 4x4, when you only ever take it as far off-road as the occasional grass verge?

    Plus they cause so much fucking agro parking and hitting peoples cars doing so.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Taxis are public transport. They offer an essential service.

    4x4s are private vehicles, and highly polluting, innapropriate and dangerous at that.

    I would say however this proposal has flaws. There should be an extra charge for such vehicles. But it should be a separate one from the existing CC. A charge that doesn't give discounts for being a resident, but simply penalises the use of highly polluting, and pointless monster trucks in the busiest city centre in Europe.

    Still, a small step on the right direction, and if it doesn't curb the use of 4x4s too much by those who live in CC area at least it Chelsea tractor owners from other areas will be a bit more relunctant to drive into town.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They do do my head in as well. Fair enough if you need a heavier car with a poorer mpg because it's got more seats and safety features. But it's stupid when the extra weight is going towards 4x4 features that the majority of the drivers will never use during the life of the car.

    The one that annoys me though is that they recently changed the rules for what counts a a business vehicle. Now loads of small businesses (i.e. plumbers, electricians etc) have huge pickup trucks because they are the only vehicles they are allowed to put through the books and claim against the business that they can still fit their kids in. My step-dad has one. He was going to buy an estate car, until he found out that he wouldn't be allowed to claim it as a business expense. How many self-employed young dads could afford a seperate van and car for different purposes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Erm, sorry? That comment makes little sense! Why would you put LPG in a diesel engine? He didn't say that...
    The new taxis use the Ford Dura Torq diesel engine, so I'm just as confused as you are now.
    Pollution now, I guess. Either way, I agree with this. Far as I am concerned, you should ONLY have a 4x4 SUV whatever, if you have a good reason and need to go off road. There is NO REASON otherwise. It just makes you look a tit.

    If you need 7 seats (I rarely se a full SUV) get an MPV. If you don't, get a smaller car. What is the point in having an uneconomical, ugly, top heavy and blatantly unsafe to other road users and pedestriants in ways a car never could be, huge 4x4, when you only ever take it as far off-road as the occasional grass verge?

    Plus they cause so much fucking agro parking and hitting peoples cars doing so.
    I'm no fan of 4x4s or indeed Chelsea Tractors, but I'm not sure why he can get away with singling them out for extortionate charges. I'd rather he focussed on unnecessary journeys by car and road in general than cherry picked easy targets for fines.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Taxis are public transport. They offer an essential service.
    So do delivery vans, and people taking their relatives to hospital, or people driving to work. I've never bought the argument that taxis should be exempt from ordinary charges that apply to the rest of us car drivers just because they are allowed to charge for taking passengers. £8 a day is peanuts to a black cab driver.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    I'm no fan of 4x4s or indeed Chelsea Tractors, but I'm not sure why he can get away with singling them out for extortionate charges. I'd rather he focussed on unnecessary journeys by car and road in general than cherry picked easy targets for fines.
    I know. Do people moan at BMW M3 owners that don't take it to the track, or Impreza owners that don't take them rallying? Both are equally unnecessary. I can't stand 4x4's but I don't think you can single them out specifically.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally speaking, I think its victimisation.

    Where the person lives, and why they need to be there, is not taken into account. The in-laws live in the middle of nowhere and need the 4x4 to get out of their house in winter, my sister-in-law is largely wheelchair-bound, why should they get clobbered for the cost.

    Not everyone needs 4x4s, of course they don't, but why would that smug little cunt care about those that do?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    So do delivery vans, and people taking their relatives to hospital, or people driving to work.
    Delivery vans are not being targetted, people taking their relatives to hospital can use a different car, a taxi, or simply pay up the charge if they must use their 4 x 4 to take someone to hospital. It's not as if they would need to do that every day anyway. And people driving to work should simply use public transport.
    I've never bought the argument that taxis should be exempt from ordinary charges that apply to the rest of us car drivers just because they are allowed to charge for taking passengers. £8 a day is peanuts to a black cab driver.
    They are part of the public transport network mate. Should we charge CC to buses?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Taxis are not part of the public transport network, any more than chauffeur-driven limos are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Not everyone needs 4x4s, of course they don't, but why would that smug little cunt care about those that do?
    Who says he doesn't?

    The point is, just about 0% of those who live in Central London need a 4x4.

    4x4= car designed for use off road.

    London= zero off roads to be found.

    Simple as.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    They are part of the public transport network mate. Should we charge CC to buses?
    Buses cut congestion, taxies don't, except saving a few parking spaces.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Delivery vans are not being targetted, people taking their relatives to hospital can use a different car, a taxi, or simply pay up the charge if they must use their 4 x 4 to take someone to hospital. It's not as if they would need to do that every day anyway. And people driving to work should simply use public transport.
    I'm talking about the congestion charge in general - why should taxis be treated as an "essential service" when these other journeys are not. I have a similar problem with the term "key worker", but I'll save that for another day.
    They are part of the public transport network mate. Should we charge CC to buses?
    Of course we should - the charge is meant to tackle congestion by pricing out unnecessary journeys on the capital's streets. However, I'd be up for persuasion that buses are more space efficient (when suitably used) than a traffic queue of cars so might be an exempt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Taxis are not part of the public transport network, any more than chauffeur-driven limos are.
    This is my view.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The idea of a taxi is exactly the same one as that of a bus or a tube train: to discourage peoeple from using their own vehicles.

    As such, taxis are public transport just as buses or trains. It's not to do with what the journeys are for. It's to do with encouraging people to leave their cars at home and using public transport.

    That is why CC should only apply to private vehicles.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The idea of a taxi is exactly the same one as that of a bus or a tube train: to discourage peoeple from using their own vehicles.

    As such, taxis are public transport just as buses or trains. It's not to do with what the journeys are for. It's to do with encouraging people to leave their cars at home and using public transport.

    That is why CC should only apply to private vehicles.
    But buses and Tubes reduce congestion - taxis don't. Nor are they better for the environment than a Chelsea Tractor.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Buses cut congestion, taxies don't, except saving a few parking spaces.
    If a taxi does 25 fares on a typical day, that's a potential 25 private vehicles it's removing from the roads. I'd say taxis help cut a lot of congestion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If a taxi does 25 fares on a typical day, that's a potential 25 private vehicles it's removing from the roads. I'd say taxis help cut a lot of congestion.
    Rubbish - those are 25 journeys that are made by a taxi rather than a car - i.e. swapping the vehicle but not reducing congestion. The only argument you could make is saving on parking spaces, but that's up to the car driver to decide whether he can afford to park or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If a taxi does 25 fares on a typical day, that's a potential 25 private vehicles it's removing from the roads. I'd say taxis help cut a lot of congestion.
    So that single taxi can take 25 people on 25 journeys simultaneously can it? No, if they all want to go somewhere at the same time, then you'd need 25 seperate taxis, so it'd make no difference.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't remember where I read it, but seeing as a staggering 20% of all traffic in city centres are cars going around looking for parking spaces, I stand by my claims that taxis help to signifcantly reduce congestion.

    The fewer cars that enter city centres, the better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    The new taxis use the Ford Dura Torq diesel engine, so I'm just as confused as you are now.

    My mistake then, I thought that taxi's were moving to LPG because it was cheaper for them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Many taxis have been on LPG for years if not decades, though many more are still on diesel. Don't know to which proportions though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My next car is a 4x4 but it's neither an SUV or an MPV.
    Four wheel drive is as much about grip and handling on a normal road as it is off road.

    Secondly, you think people who can afford and drive chelsea tractors are gonna be bothered by the £25?
    By the way, do the MP's pay the congestion charge?
    Does Mr Blair?

    Public transport is shit in London, but thankfully it will be sorted out for the Olympics. Also most people who drive into London know how pointless it is to do so, so they take public transport.
    And this is not about the people who live in London, it's about commuters. So fi the governemtn wants less congestion they need to improve train services and get them into the 21st century and then people won't have to take the car into London.

    BTW taxis in London are in fact part of public transport, without them London would not survive!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    By the way, do the MP's pay the congestion charge?
    Does Mr Blair?

    MPs pay the congestion charge. The PM will if he's driving on personal business, if he's travelling in a car on Government buisness the Government pays.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    MPs pay the congestion charge. The PM will if he's driving on personal business, if he's travelling in a car on Government buisness the Government pays.

    That's good to know. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The only ones not paying are a number of embassies. Which should have their cars taken away and crushed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's only okay if the cars that are the least polluting get it for near free
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's only okay if the cars that are the least polluting get it for near free

    So, something like this Lexus RX400h hybrid..

    rx-400h-haw-f3q-long.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.