Nice One Porsche

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Mick

If I want to use the car - I'll use the car - if I want to walk - I'll walk. My choice just as much as the next persons.

You still have the choice. You just pay for it.

People shouldn't have to be forced into doing something just because something else costs more money - it isn't the answer. It just enables those with the money to carry doing what they want because they can afford to. Thus creating a nation of Rich vs The Poor.

People who buy Porsches aren't generally poor.

And what happened to Freedom of choice? Why should people be bullied by financial penalties to reduce such problems.

Why is it bullying? And what about those who want the freedom to breathe cleaner air?

Saying 'Don't drive if you don't need to' is completely ridiculous especially from someone who doesn't drive, isn't that right Stuart.

I get along fine without a car. The fact I do not drive is irrelevant to this discussion, as I still have to travel, and still suffer the negative consequences of having so many cars in London. More so, I'd dare say, than you do. Before you answer that, bear in mind that I live and work in London, and travel into Central London anywhere up to three times a week. Thus, I spend at least 95% of my life in or around London.

Also, it's no more ridiculous that people buying 4x4s to take the kids less than half a mile to school, and there seem to be thousands that do that.

And you haven't answered my earlier question to you.

Finally, we have two big problems in this country: Pollution and obesity. Encouraging people to walk or cycle (although I find some cyclists irritating) would seem to be a good way to help with both.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by alferret

I dont like Ken Leninspart, I dont like him for what he used to stand for and for what he stands for now. If I want to drive my Porsche or X5 through london why should I be penalised. Why should I have to pay because of my emmisions being slightly more than a fart when there are a huge amount of oil burners still poluting London passing themselves off for taxi's and buses.

Which all meet the new emission requirements for a Low Emission Zone.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

<snip>the US Embassy, has already said that they won't pay the CC,

Originally Posted by alferret

Regardless of what guise it comes in, its another tax and NOT a charge for a service.
We pay vehicle tax already, we pay through the nose for fuel (due to the governments taxation on fuel) and now we get taxed if we drive through London.

I see we have the US Embassys defence down pat. This is there arguement, it is a tax not a charge (and governments do not tax other governments). I guess they won't mind when the British Consulate in NYC does not pay the charges when they put a similar zone in Manhattan.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

You still have the choice. You just pay for it.

Which is wrong.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

People who buy Porches aren't generally poor.

Precisely my point.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Why is it bullying? And what about those who want the freedom to breathe cleaner air?

Freedom - there is no such thing as Freedom - Everything has a cost these days.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I get along fine without a car. The fact I do not drive is irrelevant to this discussion, as I still have to travel, and still suffer the negative consequences of having so many cars in London. More so, I'd dare say, than you do.

Ah - making judegments now are we...

Just because you get along without a car doesn't mean someone else has to. I kind of find it arrogant when non-drivers tell other people not to drive if they don't need to.

Originally Posted by Stuart

And you haven't answered my earlier question to you.

And I am not going to. Get over it.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Mick

Ah - making judegments now are we...

Not at all. Merely pointing out that you are wrong to say my opinion is not relevant because I am not a motorist. What next? I can't say whether I like Ken Livingstone or not, because I am not a Labour voter?

Just because you get along without a car doesn't mean someone else has to. I kind of find it arrogant when non-drivers tell other people not to drive if they don't need to.

I am not saying anyone has to. Why is it arrogant to ask people not to drive if they don't need to? There's plenty of things I only do if I need to because they are expensive, why should driving be any different?

And I am not going to. Get over it.

Ah, OK. You moan about excessive costs for running a car in London. I ask you to provide an alternative that will reduce the traffic (and, incidentally, make things better for those motorists willing/able to pay the charge), and you refuse.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

a) because you're having an effect on the environment of the people who live and work there
b) because you're taking up road space which could be used more efficiently
c) because there's a perfectly good alternative
d) because the people who live there want you to, it's called democracy

a) less of an impact than other vehicles which aren't going to be penalised more though. So it's really a popularist "tax the rich, make them pay for being successful and actually getting off their backsides" rather than "lets implement the best device to reduce pollution in the city"
b) so does an estate car or mpv with only one person in it, yet they aren't going to be given an extra penalty. Again, showing that looking good to the public is what this is really about, not targetting what would make the most impact.
c) likewise with other vehicles which aren't going to be penalised more though.
d) so democracy to you is where many of those affected by something have no say in it's implementation? I'll make a note of that.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Hi Stuart, l totally respect your comment, the way that l would reduce, the traffic situation in London is quite simple, Apart from working in London, part of my job, was to deliver over the UK, and l used to love working in Oxford, they have a solution, where l believe could work in London, in the main town centre, where all the colleges are, ALL delivery vehicles have to be out by 8-00 otherwise bollards, come up through the road, and if you are stuck, you get hammered by an £80.00 ticket, the roads are free to go as you please, and there is a good bus service, in London, they could operate the same system, but as some restuarants etc, does'nt accept deliveries before 11-00, you could operate it, so that no delivery vehicles would deliver after 11.30, the majority of business's have car parks, but you could have overspill car parks, on the perimeter of the central london area, and get the tube to where you want to go, this could work, but unfortunately, we do have a problem with red tape in London, so l don't know about other areas of the UK, you could also have pedestrian only roads, except for buses, any better solutions.

[Xaccers]

Tube terminal car parks based on any suitable land near the major junctions of the M25, pay for parking and your tube ticket in one go.
Secure for vehicles, easy for commuters, reduces conjestion in London, costs a fair bit initially, and doesn't get Ken any cash though.
Course many commuters already do this, I used to drive up the A3 to Clapham and get on the tube from there, or when I moved, down to Little Chalfont, simply because there was free parking, and it was cheaper than a train.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

As Harry Hill Would say............ MODDDDDDDD FIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTT

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Ah, OK. You moan about excessive costs for running a car in London. I ask you to provide an alternative that will reduce the traffic (and, incidentally, make things better for those motorists willing/able to pay the charge), and you refuse.

Because when it comes down to it - Money is the excuse that get used to control people, to reduce emissions, people will have to pay more, to stop congestion people are going to have to pay more.

All this reduce emissions crap that people are going on about in the UK means jack all to me because we are a country that is minute compared to nations such as China and the USA - when they start giving a damn, I will because nothing we do, will stop the problems the world will face if the USA and China don't get their act together to reduce their massive emissions.

Yeah the UK can do all it can to reduce its emissions but we are urinating in the wind thanks to the likes of USA and China.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Mick

Because when it comes down to it - Money is the excuse that get used to control people, to reduce emissions, people will have to pay more, to stop congestion people are going to have to pay more.

All this reduce emissions crap that people are going on about in the UK means jack all to me because we are a country that is minute compared to nations such as China and the USA - when they start giving a damn, I will because nothing we do, will stop the problems the world will face if the USA and China don't get their act together to reduce their massive emissions.

Oh, I agree about the US and Chinese, but we won't be in a position to tell them to clean up their act until we clean up ours..

Also, since when has it been OK to say "Well he did it, so I am"?

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Oh, I agree about the US and Chinese, but we won't be in a position to tell them to clean up their act until we clean up ours..

You sound so convinced that even if we do clean up our act - they suddenly will which is very bizarre.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Also, since when has it been OK to say "Well he did it, so I am"?

Think of it as someone trying to save a sinking ship filling up with millions of gallons of water every minute and one person trying with all their might removing just three or four gallons of water every few minutes, its a clear waste of time, someone should tell the chap the ship is doomed despite all his efforts and hard work.

[alferret]

a) because you're having an effect on the environment of the people who live and work there
b) because you're taking up road space which could be used more efficiently
c) because there's a perfectly good alternative
d) because the people who live there want you to, it's called democracy

A,
I'm having an effect on the enviroment? Where does anyone who uses public transport get off saying I'm having an effect when the buses that drive on the streets of London that you use belch out clouds of noxious gases? Does it make you feel better because your not behind the wheel of a vehicle yet you choose to use one that polutes more than a knackered 20yr old escort.

B,
Road space huh? The bigger the car the more road tax you pay therefore you are effectivly paying for that little bit more space.

C,
Good alternative? What public transport can get me from my front door to my place of work and back again at a time that I need to.

D,
Democracy, Isnt that Labours way of saying were gonna tax you to within an inch of your life and then tax you some more after your dead.

He's nowhere near the stereotypical Red Ken these days

Does a leopard change its spots? He's red through and through and he's also someone in an authoritive position that needs a double scotch to kick start him in the morning.

Try the tube. Guaranteed free of traffic wardens.

Try telling my 73yr old mother that. No traffic wardens on the tube but for a frail old woman the bustle and rush on the tube isnt any help to her. Plus its way to hot in the summer.

I see we have the US Embassys defence down pat. This is there arguement, it is a tax not a charge (and governments do not tax other governments). I guess they won't mind when the British Consulate in NYC does not pay the charges when they put a similar zone in Manhattan.

Down pat? I suppose intelligent minds think alike. Its not only the US but many other embassys are refusing to pay due to the taxation they see it is.

All this reduce emissions crap that people are going on about in the UK means jack all to me because we are a country that is minute compared to nations such as China and the USA - when they start giving a damn, I will because nothing we do, will stop the problems the world will face if the USA and China don't get their act together to reduce their massive emissions.

I totally agree with that statement.
But then there will be some who will say that we have to start somewhere. Why should we be the ones to set an example when our overall emissions ATM are a lot lower than many 1st world countries and a hell of a lot lower than many more emergin 3rd world countries.

Originally Posted by alferret

...snipppety snip snip..

But then there will be some who will say that we have to start somewhere. Why should we be the ones to set an example when our overall emissions ATM are a lot lower than many 1st world countries and a hell of a lot lower than many more emergin 3rd world countries.

Why should we control our kids behaviour when others won't?
Why should I not drop litter when everyone else does?
Why shouldn't I steal from shops when I see others doing it?
Why should I recycle when others don't
Why should we try to control emissions when others don't?

Also, once again, people appear to be accidently confusing localised pollution and planetary levels - it's like saying why bother having clean tap water since the sea is so salty; if we don't start somewhere, we may as well give up (imho).

As a noted philosopher once said -
"if not you, who?
If not now, when?"

We can't (imho) ignore the problem and hope it goes away. I have kids, I would like them to enjoy the planet.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Mick

You sound so convinced that even if we do clean up our act - they suddenly will which is very bizarre.

Not at all, and the kind of pollution I started referring to is the kind that hangs around all traffic jams.

Think of it as someone trying to save a sinking ship filling up with millions of gallons of water every minute and one person trying with all their might removing just three or four gallons of water every few minutes, its a clear waste of time, someone should tell the chap the ship is doomed despite all his efforts and hard work.

Fair enough, but it sounded exactly how I said it.

[alferret]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Why should we control our kids behaviour when others won't?
Why should I not drop litter when everyone else does?
Why shouldn't I steal from shops when I see others doing it?
Why should I recycle when others don't
Why should we try to control emissions when others don't?

Also, once again, people appear to be accidently confusing localised pollution and planetary levels - it's like saying why bother having clean tap water since the sea is so salty; if we don't start somewhere, we may as well give up (imho).

As a noted philosopher once said -
"if not you, who?
If not now, when?"

We can't (imho) ignore the problem and hope it goes away. I have kids, I would like them to enjoy the planet.

I control my kids behaviour
I dont drop litter
I dont steal
I do recycle
I keep the emmisions on my vehicles within guidlines


Sea water isnt palatable (IMO) Neither are the taxes we have to pay.


"The freethinking of one age is the common sense of the next"