Porsche challenges C-charge rise

dirk_van_gently

The C-Charge is for CONGESTION, the C is not for Carbon emissions.

I think the focus on Carbon emissions is misleading, IMHO the whole carbon dioxide/climate change/global warming is flawed. The evidence to support the theory is highly disputable, scientists simply cannot agree. It has more to do with an otherwise unjustifiable channel of revenue, in much the same way that Speed Cameras have nothing to do with road safety, but that's another thread. Having said that, cars don't just emit Carbon Dioxide, there an awful lot of other pollutants being pumped into the air by cars, and the bigger the car, the bigger the pollution footprint. And you don't have to look just at what comes out of the exhaust, there's particulates from tyres, brakes.

It will be interesting to see what Porches arguments are, "Unfair and disproportional" is hardly an argument, LIFE isn't fair or proportional.

City traffic fumes 'can cause heart attacks'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3389896.ece

BentMikey

I thought the ABD was never ever anything ANY self-respecting cyclist would ever want to be associated with. My impression is that it's like SafeSpeed.

ruby644

BentMikey wrote:

I thought the ABD was never ever anything ANY self-respecting cyclist would ever want to be associated with. My impression is that it's like SafeSpeed.

Are cyclists not allowed to be car drivers?

I'm not familiiar with the policies of the ABD so I can't comment, but I do feel strongly that the current mayor is overstepping his remit and abusing his powers.
The details of the press release hit home to me just how out of control he has become.

star_rover

The 4x4/Porche drivers I have no sympathy for. Those with family cars who are affected, I have some, but would ask: why do you need to drive your family 'car' into the congestion zone anyway?

BentMikey

ruby644 wrote:

Are cyclists not allowed to be car drivers?

I'm not familiiar with the policies of the ABD so I can't comment

I'm a car driver myself, but I would strongly disassociate myself from the ABD and SafeSpeed. The bolded bit might explain why you don't feel that way.

flattythehurdler

In my experience, the larger , more polluting vehicles make cycling far worse due to their effect on air quality. You can breathe the difference. Tax them off road, and the old crap deisel biging buses with them.

mailmannz

star_rover wrote:

The 4x4/Porche drivers I have no sympathy for. Those with family cars who are affected, I have some, but would ask: why do you need to drive your family 'car' into the congestion zone anyway?

You may have missed it but the c charge zone is slowly extending to now take in residential areas. However its only a matter of time before the zone will extend eastwards, where more residential areas will be included in the charging zone.

And as my wife is at home with children and sometimes requires the car to get from A to B, will soon mean she will be entering the c zone to visit friends or the supermarket etc.

As I use public transport on the weekends to ferry kids between events, if my wife was to use the bus with baby in pram and little kids hanging off shoulder without help she would be stuck at home because, and lets be honest here, buses arent made for families with babies (unless of course it suddenly becomes a law where you have to buy one of those socialist approved plastic buggies with the plastic wheels and poorly put together aluminium parts that dont hold together etc???).

Mailman

Eat My Dust

I reckon if you can afford to live in a family sized house and own a car within the c charge zone, then you can afford to pay the charge.

star_rover

mailmannz wrote:

star_rover wrote:

The 4x4/Porche drivers I have no sympathy for. Those with family cars who are affected, I have some, but would ask: why do you need to drive your family 'car' into the congestion zone anyway?

You may have missed it but the c charge zone is slowly extending to now take in residential areas. However its only a matter of time before the zone will extend eastwards, where more residential areas will be included in the charging zone.

And as my wife is at home with children and sometimes requires the car to get from A to B, will soon mean she will be entering the c zone to visit friends or the supermarket etc.

As I use public transport on the weekends to ferry kids between events, if my wife was to use the bus with baby in pram and little kids hanging off shoulder without help she would be stuck at home because, and lets be honest here, buses arent made for families with babies (unless of course it suddenly becomes a law where you have to buy one of those socialist approved plastic buggies with the plastic wheels and poorly put together aluminium parts that dont hold together etc???).

Mailman

I take your point. It's a shame that the issue has been hijacked by Porche who, lets face it, no one will have an iota of sympathy for.

Matteeboy

So anyone that makes a few quid through hard work deserves a good walloping for cash at every opportunity?

Seems that way to me.

FatBurt

Eat My Dust wrote:

I reckon if you can afford to live in a family sized house and own a car within the c charge zone, then you can afford to pay the charge.

I own a family sized house, drive a Nissan Primera diesel and I have two kids.


Just because I was lucky enough to get on the property ladder early does not automatically mean that I am financially well off enough to handle an additional daily charge for commuting using a mode of trasport that I am already taxed to the hilt on.


Foretunately I live in Manchester so the congestion charge does not YET apply to me. I also cycle to work. But basic family essentials like getting the kids to school and the childminder would be made prohibitively expensive as and when a congestion charge is brought in as they would automatically apply it to where I live even though I am well outside of the center of the city

BentMikey

What is it about British drivers that makes them feel like they are the most hard-done by people on the planet? I think the attitudes displayed are often pathetic and whinging. No sympathy from me, and I'm a driver.

Clever Pun

FatBurt wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

I reckon if you can afford to live in a family sized house and own a car within the c charge zone, then you can afford to pay the charge.

I own a family sized house, drive a Nissan Primera diesel and I have two kids.


Just because I was lucky enough to get on the property ladder early does not automatically mean that I am financially well off enough to handle an additional daily charge for commuting using a mode of trasport that I am already taxed to the hilt on.

lets not forget the hefty number of people who inherit houses...

FatBurt

I don't feel hard done by I just feel that drivers are often unfairly targetted.


The continual increase in cost of transport from fuel through to congestion charging adds additional costs onto absolutely everything you buy if it's been transported by anything powered by petrol/diesel.


Regardless whether the global warming issue is true or not and if the impact we are having is real or not I personally believe that we as a species need to do more to help limit our impact on the planet.

I don't personally feel that the best way to improve things is to revert to the default of "tax it" and that appears to be the governments standard approach.

BentMikey

I on the other hand, see drivers, including as myself, having something of a free ride on the rest of society. I can't possibly see any unfair targeting going on, and would like to see a lot more excesses curbed, particularly those of speeding and driving whilst talking on the phone. I'm a supporter of the congestion charge and road charging too.

DavidTQ

FatBurt wrote:

I don't personally feel that the best way to improve things is to revert to the default of "tax it" and that appears to be the governments standard approach.

The TAX it approach has worked to a degree its a large part of the reason Im on a bike, Im no environmental campaigner. As much as I like the idea of things being environmentally sound that comes a long way down my list of priorities after cost and convenience.

Personally Im not at all convinced that the taxing is about saving the planet at all, I think it is just a fund raiser, I dont believe for a second the government actually wants everyone to ditch all their cars and get on their bikes, imagine the drastic reduction in tax income the government would have to deal with...

Hence I cycle taking money from the government coffers and putting it in my wallet to spend as I like...

Porgy

DavidTQ wrote:

FatBurt wrote:

I don't personally feel that the best way to improve things is to revert to the default of "tax it" and that appears to be the governments standard approach.

The TAX it approach has worked to a degree its a large part of the reason Im on a bike, Im no environmental campaigner. As much as I like the idea of things being environmentally sound that comes a long way down my list of priorities after cost and convenience.

Personally Im not at all convinced that the taxing is about saving the planet at all, I think it is just a fund raiser, I dont believe for a second the government actually wants everyone to ditch all their cars and get on their bikes, imagine the drastic reduction in tax income the government would have to deal with...

Hence I cycle taking money from the government coffers and putting it in my wallet to spend as I like...

There's no contradiction in a tax being a fundraiser and helping to save the planet. in fact it makes good sense. I was recently on an IEMA envrionemntal management course which went to great lengths to point out that environmental benefits can only really be brought about if they also provide a financial incentive -hence taxes are often necessary.

Eat My Dust

FatBurt wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

I reckon if you can afford to live in a family sized house and own a car within the c charge zone, then you can afford to pay the charge.

I own a family sized house, drive a Nissan Primera diesel and I have two kids.


Just because I was lucky enough to get on the property ladder early does not automatically mean that I am financially well off enough to handle an additional daily charge for commuting using a mode of trasport that I am already taxed to the hilt on.


Foretunately I live in Manchester so the congestion charge does not YET apply to me. I also cycle to work. But basic family essentials like getting the kids to school and the childminder would be made prohibitively expensive as and when a congestion charge is brought in as they would automatically apply it to where I live even though I am well outside of the center of the city

Sorry I thought you were talking about London. I still stick by what I posted earlier. You would have had to get on the property ladder really early if you owned a family sized house in Knightsbride/chelsea/Kensington and still be pleading average income!!

Parkey

I support the congestion charge, and all of Ken Livingstone's other transport initiatives and long term goals. At least he actually has initiatives and long term goals for transport, unlike our recent steady stream of secretaries of state for transport of increasing incompetence and the civil servants at the DfT who've probably never actually seen a bus or a railway.

cupofteacp

I belive this has more to do with Ken raising money than saving the planet or helping reduce traffic.

My concern is that he'll combines the Congestion charge with the emissions zone, and begins charging all cars.

He'd start by suggesting that he'd only hit those terrible cars like 4X4$ and then begin rolling the charges down.

There is an argument to say no needs a car but in the real world this isn't the case.

I just hope I'm wrong.

ruby644

Eat My Dust wrote:

I reckon if you can afford to live in a family sized house and own a car within the c charge zone, then you can afford to pay the charge.

The western extension to the zone (and parts of the central zone) includes a large proportion of council/social housing for families who have cars. Living inside the zone does not guarantee wealth or high disposable income and by no means are all the flats and houses owner occupied.

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

I on the other hand, see drivers, including as myself, having something of a free ride on the rest of society.

Can you plaese point out how exactly motorists get a free ride on the backs of the rest of society?

I can't possibly see any unfair targeting going on, and would like to see a lot more excesses curbed, particularly those of speeding and driving whilst talking on the phone. I'm a supporter of the congestion charge and road charging too.

Which, funnily enough has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, you thread jacker you!

Mailman

ruby644

star_rover wrote:

The 4x4/Porche drivers I have no sympathy for. Those with family cars who are affected, I have some, but would ask: why do you need to drive your family 'car' into the congestion zone anyway?

Maybe because we live just outside the zone and our 6 year old''s school is now inside the zone.
Too far to walk, can't go on his own, and has to be there at 9am which happens to be the same time his 3 year old sister has to be at nursery.

Eat My Dust

ruby644 wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

I reckon if you can afford to live in a family sized house and own a car within the c charge zone, then you can afford to pay the charge.

The western extension to the zone (and parts of the central zone) includes a large proportion of council/social housing for families who have cars. Living inside the zone does not guarantee wealth or high disposable income and by no means are all the flats and houses owner occupied.

Hmm I always believed (and still do) that owning a car is a luxury. If you can't afford a luxury, then you shouldn't have it. Mrs EMD and I earn well over the average wage and if I was to buy a car it would really effect our financial situation. I put it to you that a lot (most) people out there can't really afford to own a car. There's even a proportion of people driving without insurance because it's too "expensive".

BentMikey

mailmannz wrote:

Can you plaese point out how exactly motorists get a free ride on the backs of the rest of society?

Because I think that private motorists are subsidised by society. Don't think for a minute that the real costs are being met by VED and fuel duty.

ruby644

BentMikey wrote:

mailmannz wrote:

Can you plaese point out how exactly motorists get a free ride on the backs of the rest of society?

Because I think that private motorists are subsidised by society. Don't think for a minute that the real costs are being met by VED and fuel duty.

Still not sure what you mean, any examples?

nwallace

BentMikey wrote:

mailmannz wrote:

Can you plaese point out how exactly motorists get a free ride on the backs of the rest of society?

Because I think that private motorists are subsidised by society. Don't think for a minute that the real costs are being met by VED and fuel duty.

And the real costs are?

If your referring to the costs of roads, then the biggest free loaders are those on bicycles and other vehicles that can not travel on an unmade road.

If your referring to the cost of tidying up accidents, an ambulance call out (yes one that in any other circumstance would be free) is charged to the insurance company of the parties involved, further charges like that would see cleaning up road accidents covered entirley under insurance and thus cost those requiring insurance more.

Normal (er) Murder scenes are not cleaned up by the police, this is down to again insurance companies, this hit the headlines recently up here when a Glasgow family were left with a kitchen covered in the blood of a deceased family member and due to lack of cover being left to clean it up themselves.

Where else do motorists get subsidised by the rest of society (and in fact with the majority of society at tiems being motorists how does your claim stack up?)


On the climate front:

If this is right (and i doubt it)

Bicycles: 4 adults cycle 5 miles to work at an average speed of 8mph, time taken 38 mins (0.63hr).Exercise breathing rate: 6 cub metres/hour, so cyclists exhale 4 x 6 x 0.63 = 15.1 cub metres air.
Exhaled air contains 4% carbon dioxide (CO2), 1 cubic metre exhaled air contains 73.3g CO2. So the amount of CO2 exhaled by the four cyclists is 15.1 x 73.3 = 1108 g.

Car: Four adults travel by car, travelling 5 miles at average 22mph, time taken14 mins (0.23hour). At-rest adult breathing rate is 0.4 cub
metres/ hour. So four adults in car exhale 4 x 0.4 x 0.23 cubic metres air = 0.37 cub metres air. 0.37 cubic metres exhaled air, 4% CO2, contains 0.37 x 73.3 = 27g CO2. The car exhaust emits 215g CO2 per mile (modern, high mpg), so CO2 emitted is 5 x 215 =1075g
Total CO2 emitted by car and 4 seated adults is 1075 + 27 = 1102g.


Flaws I see:
1) Assumes constant exercise on a bike, never heard of free-wheeling?
2) If everyone did 30mins exercise that leaves you breathless a day, then the CO2 emitted by that is also adding to climate change. Therefore do we now need a exercise tax to cut down on CO2 emissions from gyms and Joggers?

simon_e

BentMikey wrote:

I [snip] would like to see a lot more excesses curbed, particularly those of speeding and driving whilst talking on the phone. I'm a supporter of the congestion charge and road charging too.

Same, though I'd add that improving RTC statistics would be my no. 1 priority. Far too many bunches of flowers tied to lamp posts around here.

Car driving seems to bring out the worst in people, they are too often selfish and inconsiderate*. Too many think driving their car where and when they like is a right. It's not and it's harmful.

Shrewsbury town centre, or at least parts of it, would be immeasurably better without traffic. On the odd occasion the High Street is closed for an event it's like a dream, the space is transformed, people can cross safely, it's quiet (no drum & bass) and the air is nicer.

Somehow I doubt that the new £25 charge is 'fair', based as it is on a bald CO2 output figure. There will be winners and losers and secretly I'm miffed that any big 4x4 can sneak in under the 225g 'radar'. However, I guess the Mayor's office realised this was an opportunity to raise some money from people with (apparently) more expensive/gas guzzling vehicles. While it looks like Ken is abusing his powers, it could in fact be the catalyst for a change of attitude in other town and city chambers.

I laughed at the fact that it was Porsche that wish to contest the legal side. You couldn't ask for a brand with a more City Slicker gated community-oriented image. I'd imagine there will be loads of people prepared to back the charge because Porsche are against it. Or are we inverted snobs an even smaller minority than I thought?

* OTOH going home tonight I have to say I was waved across or out of junctions more times than I've ever known, so I have not entirely given up hope.

BentMikey

Yes, I do realise that road costs can be added up to either extreme, it's a controversial issue. Taking the view that costs are not covered by VED and fuel tax is quite middle of the road. Given the fact that part of your council and income tax goes towards roads, it seems fairly obvious that drivers are subsidised by taxpayers, and not all taxpayers are drivers.

As for the argument that cyclists are freeloaders, that's complete rubbish. Looking at this from a road damage point of view, cyclists don't cause any worth taxing. Even cars cause very little damage compared with HGVs, it's apparently proportional to the cube of axle weight.

From the who pays for it point of view, if you assume that either cyclists don't drive, or that they are replacing car journeys with bicycle ones, then they are net contributors for their journeys. Unlike drivers, who are net users.

nwallace wrote:

If this is right (and i doubt it)

I don't think I would have bothered to post then, and I'm not quite sure why you did.

redddraggon

nwallace wrote:

Car: Four adults travel by car, travelling 5 miles at average 22mph, time taken14 mins (0.23hour). At-rest adult breathing rate is 0.4 cub
metres/ hour. So four adults in car exhale 4 x 0.4 x 0.23 cubic metres air = 0.37 cub metres air. 0.37 cubic metres exhaled air, 4% CO2, contains 0.37 x 73.3 = 27g CO2. The car exhaust emits 215g CO2 per mile (modern, high mpg), so CO2 emitted is 5 x 215 =1075g
Total CO2 emitted by car and 4 seated adults is 1075 + 27 = 1102g.

That's assuming only one car, with four occupants. It's more likely that there would be four cars each with a single occupant, people don't tend to share very often. Giving a value more like 4327g of CO2.

How often do you see four sharing a car to work? I can't say it's a common thing.