I've read that Ken Livingstone has branded these drivers idiotic and states they have no place on the roads except in places of rugged turrain.

There is no question that these vehicles produce higher pollution levels and are a menace on the roads with the size and safety aspect for other drivers and pedestrians.

They have become very tendy in recent times particularly on the school run.

Do you think these vehicles should face higher taxes

I think road tax should be calculated according to 3 variables:
- vehicle size (length and width)
- engine size
- fuel emissions

So using that basis, they would be charged more road tax anyway. I do think however that saying all drivers of them are idiotic is a bit extreme.

Not at all.

A rather more creative technique would be to impose a street parking / waiting ban around schools at start/end times and license teachers to give out fixed penalty tickets.

Of course another sensible alternative would be to do away with road tax and 3rd party insurance and put 50p on the price of a gallon of fuel to cover both. Fuel economy might be a higher priority for people then.

I think they should be banned from the roads altogether. A recent safety report found them 3 times more likely to kill a pedestrian than a normal car, in the event of being hit by one. In a side impact 4x4 and normal car crash, the death rate increases by 27 times. That's 27 TIMES more, not 27% more.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/story.jsp?story=535763

I think they should do away with "road tax" as it is, and instead put more tax on fuel. That way, the more you use your car the more tax you pay.

If someone needs a car for occasional use but most of the time it is parked on their driveway, then wouldn't it make more sense for them to be paying less tax?

But the car might be barely used yet parked on the side the road, what then?

Originally posted by t020
But the car might be barely used yet parked on the side the road, what then?

Thanks... thats another reason why the present system is unfair. In "poorer" inner-city areas residents who aren't fortunate enough to have a driveway to park in have to fork out another £25 per year to park their car outside their house.... and even after paying the extra charge there is still no guarantee they can park on their own street!

You're missing my point. If someone has or hasn't got a drive, they may still park on the road, taking up road space and a parking place. Under the road tax system, the owner of this parked car would be paying per year for using the road. If it was all tagged on to fuel and they never use the car, they are taking up road space for free and are therefore being subsidised by people who DO use their cars and who may want to park in the place being hogged for free.

I must admit I did own a 4x4 for a while. This was after having someone crash head on into me (a man of around 90 years old) and writing my car off with my 2 children inside, one of which 1 week old at the time.

After a lucky escape I felt very vunerable so bought a 4x4 purely because I was higher up and felt a little safer.

The fad did not last long at all. I sold it after a year.

I do find them ridiculous and it does seem that the people that use them have no intention of going "off road". As women with vast amounts of make-up and pearls I am sure are not going to spoil their freshly coiffed hair by a bumpy ride "off road".

Anyone who can justify having one, fair enough. For the rest who can't and it seems a status symbol then, yes, tax them more.

I shall now adorn my tin hat and run like a B**ch

So what about people who drive sports cars? There's no real need for them either since the speed limit is an absolute maximum of 70mph on UK roads - tax them to death too? What about big cars? Should owners have to justify why they chose a big car when a small hatchback could be just as effective? Lets take it one step further - force everyone to drive around in white Ladas or not have a car at all.

You can't discriminate against a driver based on their choice of car. Road tax should be based on 3 variables, as I proposed near the start of this thread, not on the style of the car.

I believe the French are already doing this - seems a good idea to me stick a nice hefty tax on them - if you need one for work you can claim the tax back and all these middle aged middle class women who use em for the school run can make a decent contribution to the treasury!

Originally posted by t020
I think road tax should be calculated according to 3 variables:
- vehicle size (length and width)
- engine size
- fuel emissions

So using that basis, they would be charged more road tax anyway. I do think however that saying all drivers of them are idiotic is a bit extreme.

That sounds fair enough to me.

Yes
yes
yes,

Tax them all. If I happen to own one I will accept my fate.

Originally posted by t020
But the car might be barely used yet parked on the side the road, what then?
Nope t020, it's still fairer that heavier users pay more tax. That would include me BTW.

There is no reason at all why manufacturers can't make big cars or 4x4's safer, more economical and less damaging to the environment - just give them the incentive.

As regards parking on the road, well I would be quite happy to introduce legislation so that people have to demonstrate that they have somewhere to park thier car off the public highway, just like Japan. That would also contribute to getting bigger cars off the road.

To get old cars off the road, just increase the MOT standards till it hurts.

So we can all be driving around in 04 reg Smart cars then? Great, thanks for that Tony.

Originally posted by t020
So we can all be driving around in 04 reg Smart cars then? Great, thanks for that Tony.
Nothing wrong with that.

Not at all. It will merely encourage a lifestyle decision in a certain way.

Those who want big fast thirsty dirty cars (like me for instance) will just have to pay for it and have somewhere to put it (like my drive).

Those who don't want to afford it will choose something else, and will be encouraged to use public transport, reduce congestion, live closer to work, patronise local schools and local shops and heaven forbid... walk!.

Utopia eh?

Not really, no.

Originally posted by Tony
As regards parking on the road, well I would be quite happy to introduce legislation so that people have to demonstrate that they have somewhere to park thier car off the public highway, just like Japan. That would also contribute to getting bigger cars off the road.

That would clear up our clogged streets of parked cars, making a safer environment for both road user and pedestrian

Originally posted by Tony
To get old cars off the road, just increase the MOT standards till it hurts.

Ummm not much fun if you own a classic or veteran car

Originally posted by t020
Not really, no.

And so what are the structural problems with my proposal, apart from removing a little choice and freedom?

Two main things I can see:

1. The majority of city center and many older houses don't have spaces for cars - so only people who can aford suburban houses can have a car.

2. Realisticaly public transport is not a viable alternative - I live 20 mins walk from town but have found that public transport is slow, expensie and unreliable so I have just bought myself a cheapie old car (car, tax and insurance aroung £800!) - I plan on using a car maybe a couple of times a week so don't want to lay out for a new car so little old ones still have a place - and are cheaper and more economically/ecologically viable than a new one.

Originally posted by Tony
And so what are the structural problems with my proposal, apart from removing a little choice and freedom?

Removing choice and freedom. I thought you were a capitalist? The last thing I'd want to do is to be restricted in my choice of car and be tied down with red tape should I choose a less economical option. Cars that use lots of fuel already pay more tax through the tax on fuel! If you're getting less MPG then obviously you're paying more tax for equivalent journeys.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Two main things I can see:

1. The majority of city center and many older houses don't have spaces for cars - so only people who can aford suburban houses can have a car.

2. Realisticaly public transport is not a viable alternative - I live 20 mins walk from town but have found that public transport is slow, expensie and unreliable so I have just bought myself a cheapie old car (car, tax and insurance aroung £800!) - I plan on using a car maybe a couple of times a week so don't want to lay out for a new car so little old ones still have a place - and are cheaper and more economically/ecologically viable than a new one.

I agree that it's not a perfect solution, but overall I can't think of a better one.

You'll be ok then EDN as you will be able to drive a smaller more economical car like you sound as though you do now. Public transport will improve because they will have more passengers and better services will be more viable. Public transport works well in lots of other countries - don't give up hope.



Originally posted by t020
Removing choice and freedom. I thought you were a capitalist? The last thing I'd want to do is to be restricted in my choice of car and be tied down with red tape should I choose a less economical option. Cars that use lots of fuel already pay more tax through the tax on fuel! If you're getting less MPG then obviously you're paying more tax for equivalent journeys.

Well that's capitalism at work t020! If you can't afford it, you don't have it. You've still got 100% choice, but we can't all afford a fancy car can we?

You should choose a more economical option for many many reasons, but the one that will make up your mind is the drain on your wallet.

Think of it like houses. Houses in Ecclesall are out of reach for a lot of people, so they choose to live in other areas, regardless of how much they would like to live in Ecclesall. You yourself have said that you won't be able to buy a house in Ecclesall, well it's just the same as a fancy car. :thumbsup:

But house prices in Ecclesall are dictated by market forces, not government intervention. As a capitalist you should know the difference.

"Fancy" cars are already more expensive, and also use more fuel so cost more in fuel tax. Making more bureaucracy to deal with "certain" types of car and chaining their owners to red tape and yet more taxation is not the capitalist way to do things.

Under the present system, people who live near the city centre are paying extra money every year for a parking space outside their homes... because of people from places like Ecclesall driving to work or university and parking their cars on already crowded streets to avoid having to pay to use a car park.

So obviously parking on the road outside your house is NOT covered by paying road tax, is it?

Yes, obviously.

Originally posted by t020
But house prices in Ecclesall are dictated by market forces, not government intervention. As a capitalist you should know the difference.

"Fancy" cars are already more expensive, and also use more fuel so cost more in fuel tax. Making more bureaucracy to deal with "certain" types of car and chaining their owners to red tape and yet more taxation is not the capitalist way to do things.
I suggested putting 50p on a gallon and doing away with Car Tax. Sounds pretty simple to me!

And once you have compulsary / included 3rd party insurance imagine how that will free up the courts and the Police! Yet another simple idea.

As for providing somewhere to park your car, well that's just as simple. If a car is parked on the street outside a house, there should be a darned good reason for it and that can be instantly checked against the national register. Simple again eh?

All in all, cheaper and more effective! I think youre disagreeing for the sake of it.

Rather than penalising inner-city dwellers who have no choice but to park on the road due to lack of driveway or garage, maybe the council could bring in a city-wide charge for parking on the road... and if the car owner has access to a driveway or garage and are spotted parked on the road they could be made to pay double the fee for someone who has no access to a driveway or garage.
:)

Hmmm... anyone with a larger engine in their car is already paying more tax.

Regarding 4x4's it's all a matter of choice isn't it?

The vast majority of 4x4's owners never go off road. This is the same as the vast majority of 'sports' car owners who never go to the track. Also how many people carriers do you see that are full of people?

I'm not sure about removing all old cars from the road. Sure newer cars are far kinder to the environment but this is ofset by the huge increase in car ownership.

I remember a while ago Volkswagen introduced a new car (the name escapes me) that was supposed to be super efficient, however it was calculated that you would be able to run the 'average' family car for 300,000 miles to use the same amout of energy that was needed to make it !!!

Road tax should be on petrol.... wait before you say we pay enough for petrol let me explain

Correct me if I am wrong

Person A owns exactly the same make model and age car as Person B

Person A does an average of 5,000 miles a year
Person B does an average of 20,000 miles a yaer

But both pay the same road tax even though Person B uses the roads 3 times more than Person A.

Lots of people I have heard say this, its not only me!

4 x 4 vehicles shouldn't have emissions which are illegal - they have to go through MOTs like everyone else. Many 4 x 4 owners get LPG coversions making it cheaper for them fuel wise.

I have a 4x4, a short wheel base. It's reasonably economical and I wouldn't say it pollutes the environment any more than a Mondeo or a white van (stand behind one of those...they can really fill the air with smoke!). Fill your car with heavy stuff and it'll burn more fuel no matter what make, model or gear box.

Speaking of gear boxes...if you drive your four-bee around in four wheel drive, then it's going to burn more fuel. It's perfectly normal to drive it in 2 wheel drive.

I bought my four-bee-four not to drive kids to school or to pose in or to be an environmental hazzard. I got it for road safety. It's higher than other vehicles so it's safer as you can see more.

It also doesn't have the agility and speed to go whizzing down Ecclesall Road at 70mph as some cars do. It's a slow and steady whale.

I don't have bull bars - which allegedly kill more pedestrians, but they can be fitted onto non four wheel drive cars. Personally I think that if a car hits you, you're going to be injured, whether it's a 4x4 or a smart car....a lump of metal travelling along tarmac will hurt if it runs into you.

Finally (yes, there's more)....I used to drive a Subaru Justy...which is about the size of a Micra. That was a 4x4. Small and inoffensive.

People need to define exactly what they mean by "4x4".

4x4 means 4 wheel drive.
Many normal saloon and estate vehicles, and even a lot of hatchbacks as well as sportscars, utilise four wheel drive.

And a lot of '4x4' vehicles have selectable 2 or 4 wheel drive, so would the raised taxes only apply to the cars when in 4 wheel drive mode?

So four-wheel-drive equipped vehicles alone should not attract higher taxes.

A few people are making a case against the size of these vehicles - ie. the room they take up on the road.

Fact is, the footprint of many 4x4s is similar to that of regular estate/saloon cars etc.
They are certainly higher, so they appear bigger, but this does not equate to a larger footprint on the road.

So, perhaps weight is how we could define a 4x4? Not really.
Many '4x4s' are of a similar kerb weight to that of the large executive saloons parked up throughout the city all week.



So, the only way I can really differentiate what is commonly known as a 4x4 from all the other cars on the road is by off road ability.

So how do we judge this? Ground clearance? Axle travel? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Classic Rock
I bought my four-bee-four not to drive kids to school or to pose in or to be an environmental hazzard. I got it for road safety. It's higher than other vehicles so it's safer as you can see more.
It also doesn't have the agility and speed to go whizzing down Ecclesall Road at 70mph as some cars do. It's a slow and steady whale.
I don't buy the safety argument. The 4x4 decreases other peoples visibility, so the net visibility is the same.

When a car hits someone in a city, it breaks their legs and throws them onto the bonnet. When a 4x4 hits someone, it's far more likely to kill them. In Australia, they've found 4x4s cause 2.5 times as many child deaths as cars [1]. They believe the reasons for this include poor visibility due to increased height and objects obstructing view through the rear window.

Depending on which study you read, a 4x4 crashing into a car is between 12.8 and 27 TIMES more likely to result in death than a car-car crash. [2][3]. It's worst in side impacts, where the 4x4 is likely to ride up over the side impact bars and crush the occupants of the vehicle (car-car side crashes tend to result in leg injuries; 4x4-car crashes result in more head & torso injuries and deaths).

I guess monster extra huge black tanks that have been appearing on the roads are the worst... they're gross. The older smaller ones... well OK.. if you must.


[1] 4x4s have 2.5x greater risk of child fatalities Medical Journal of Australia (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_04_210800/holland/holland.html) , Vol. 173, 21 Aug 2000, pp. 192-195

[2] "Vehicle compatibility: Analysis of fatal crashes", Road safety report CR 181 (1999), Australian Transport Safety Bureau (http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/)

[3] Institute for highway safety (http://www.hwysafety.org/crash/crashgen/sfsccrsh.htm)

Originally posted by garrence
I don't buy the safety argument. The 4x4 decreases other peoples visibility, so the net visibility is the same.

When a car hits someone in a city, it breaks their legs and throws them onto the bonnet. When a 4x4 hits someone, it's far more likely to kill them. In Australia, they've found 4x4s cause 2.5 times as many child deaths as cars [1]. They believe the reasons for this include poor visibility due to increased height and objects obstructing view through the rear window.

Depending on which study you read, a 4x4 crashing into a car is between 12.8 and 27 TIMES more likely to result in death than a car-car crash. [2][3]. It's worst in side impacts, where the 4x4 is likely to ride up over the side impact bars and crush the occupants of the vehicle (car-car side crashes tend to result in leg injuries; 4x4-car crashes result in more head & torso injuries and deaths).

I guess monster extra huge black tanks that have been appearing on the roads are the worst... they're gross. The older smaller ones... well OK.. if you must.


[1] 4x4s have 2.5x greater risk of child fatalities Medical Journal of Australia (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_04_210800/holland/holland.html) , Vol. 173, 21 Aug 2000, pp. 192-195

[2] "Vehicle compatibility: Analysis of fatal crashes", Road safety report CR 181 (1999), Australian Transport Safety Bureau (http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/)

[3] Institute for highway safety (http://www.hwysafety.org/crash/crashgen/sfsccrsh.htm)


When people judge how safe a car is, they dont care how unpleasant it is for the pedestrian they hit or the hatchback the collide with.

They judge a car's safety by how well it will protect themselves.

I thought that some 4x4's had gas conversions fitted as standard or something? Nah I don't think that all 4x4 drivers are reckless. Just another idiot putting people in boxes again.

I have to admit though that you don't really need them on the road ... unless you live in Utah or something.

Mind you I have a 4x4. It is fifty years old though ... ;)