Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

London congestion charge soars to £25 a day for 4x4s



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 February 2008
By Peter Woodman
GAS-GUZZLING vehicles, such as 4x4 "Chelsea tractors", will have to pay a £25 daily charge to enter London's congestion charge zone from October.
Owners of 4x4s and some high-powered sports cars and luxury vehicles will see the charge rising from the current £8 a day as part of London mayor Ken Livingstone's plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

However, cars with the lowest emissions wil
l receive a 100 per cent discount from the daily charge from 27 October.

Mr Livingstone said: "Nobody needs to damage the environment by driving a gas-guzzling Chelsea tractor in central London. The emissions from the most high-powered 4x4s and sports cars can be up to four times as great as the least polluting cars.

"The charge will encourage people to switch to cleaner vehicles or public transport and ensure that those who choose to carry on driving the most polluting vehicles help pay for the environmental damage they cause. This is the 'polluter pays' principle."

Mr Livingstone said he hoped his initiative would have an impact throughout the world, with other cities following suit.

Most motorists will still pay £8 a day. The £25 charge will apply to about 17 per cent of vehicles – those emitting more than 225 grams of per kilometre (g/k), as well as those registered before March 2001 that have engines larger than 3,000cc. The total discount is for cars emitting less than 120g/k – about 2 per cent of the total.





The full article contains 257 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 February 2008 9:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change , Road tolls
 
1

IanW,

Ottobrunn 13/02/2008 08:04:08
So presumably every vehicle will be tested before entering the zone to see which rate it should be charged at? Just because it is a small car does not mean that it has a small pollution effect. Badly maintained cars are often serious polluters.

2

Tobydawg,

Alloa 13/02/2008 09:51:00
Is this legal??? We in the UK are being taxed several times over for the same thing, ie: road tax, fuel tax, congestion tax, and now pollution tax. Why do we stand for it???
3

walter,

13/02/2008 10:04:03
I watched a report on the news in the early hour about a vehicle that runs on air and will not pollute at all.
The company believe they will have there first vehicles on the road by the end of the year.
I wonder what tax Livingstone will bring out if (or should I say when) this vehicle becomes popular.
4

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 13/02/2008 10:50:07
#2:

I don't know why we stand for it. I reckon that sometime soon we should have a motorists "strike" where we block up roads, stop using our vehicles, blockade airports, seaports and major railway stations and bring the country to its knees.

We should not give up until:

1. Fuel prices are halved and it is put in to constitution that fuel can never again be taxed at more than 100%
2. Tiered road tax is scrapped and it is returned to a flat rate.
3. ALL road pricing is abolished
4. Speed cameras are scrpped
5. Traffic calming measures are removed.

I'd be up for it? Has no-one else got the bottle?
5

Goat Boy,

13/02/2008 11:19:36
A typical misleading headline and a bit of sensationalism from the Scotsman. You need to read the small print at the end of the article to fully understand who this has been directed at.

This is an interesting move by Ken. The London Transport website claims that "The primary aim of Congestion Charging remains to tackle congestion and encourage drivers to shift from private vehicles to public transport, walking and cycling." I assume this is to capture the larger small vehicles that will have escaped the Low Emission Zone categories.
6

Spicey,

Glasgow 13/02/2008 12:14:12
#4

"bring the country to its knees" ie starve ourselves into submission, a mass hunger strike? The only people this would affect is ourselves.

If this was really an issue people would stand as candidates for parliament on this issue and people would vote for them.
7

truthsleuth,

13/02/2008 14:20:58
#4 Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head

Boy oh Boy your title says it all and the fumes must be affecting your brain.

Get out of your tin box, start thinking through the issues and drop your narrow(!!!!) minded ness.

If you were to stand you may well get elected, but then George Bush et al were elected and if you stood on a platform to abolish all taxes you almost definitel be elected.

I just simply would want to be in a more civilised country watching the results of your policies on TV.
8

Griffe,

13/02/2008 17:08:01
Make it £250 a day. Why does anyone want a 4X4 in London?
9

Biker,

Ayr 13/02/2008 18:25:15
Another stupid and iniquitus tax by a LABOUr council. Many of the 4x4s causing the problems are the school runcars, which actualy reside within rthe cogestion area. How the hell Livingston intents to make this stick is anybodies guess. The first legal challenge will have this ruling revoked. Two tear taxation is frankly stupid, especialy on this subject. How many 4x4s polute more than a 10 year old Vectra or Ford? not many I guess. I'm with you Alternative, lets stop the ba##ards dead.
10

Reckless,

hffu 13/02/2008 18:51:11
1)Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy. Attacks on the people,other controlling acts, told we're in a ‘global war, the scare of vague ‘terrorist attacks to knock us off-balance and (run to the government)for protection.

2)Create a Gulag. Now that we're all scared so a prison system is made outside the ‘rule of Law.We support it because it's for “Them” but soon it becomes for “us”. Many are secret. Special ‘Court's develop and many of us could be caught without bail, lawyers or even trials)

3)Develop scary thugs.(have paramilitary scary men/contractors to intimidate people. Today these are to create fear. It's so-called ‘security to restore public order)

4)Set up an internal surveillance system.(spying on regular people. High visibility wiretaps, reading emails, tax intimidation and all for fabricated ‘national security)

5)Harass citizens groups.(Infiltrate normal citizens groups.Call them suspicious incidents and accuse them of potential terrorist's events which scares the hell out of regular people)

6)Engage in detention and release.(This is to scare ordinary people. You become a target for security searches without cause. If you support the constitution you're a potential terrorist. You're harassed over and over. Picked up and released. Picked up and released until you break and isolate. They win)

7)Target Key individuals (Threaten people with job loss that supports them. Launch attacks on university teachers if they don't support current ideological demands. This paves the way for the brutal ways that will follow soon and they are caught in a trap)

8)Control the press.(threats against life and limb if you don't toe the line… often wounded or killed. Real news is supplanted by fake news and you must report what is given you or suffer consequences. It gets so crazy you soon can't sort out the real from unreal.Citizens can't tell either so give up in stages since it reaches a point when nothing is credible.

9)Dissent equals treaso
11

Why can't I use my usual name?,

Glasgow 13/02/2008 19:29:11
Driving a big 4x4 in a city is anti-social behaviour. Have you seen the pedestrian safety ratings for some of these things? See for yourself... www.euroncap.com/large_off_road_4_4.aspx
12

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 14/02/2008 10:46:11
My wife and I drive a Honda CR-V 2005 diesel model which routinely gets 41mpg. It has a NCAP rating of 4* for occupants and 3* for pedestrians. It's (shudder) a 4x4. However it does more mpg than our smaller Civic (37). This is not an advert for this maker and I do not work for them!

At least public transport in London is available and will no doubt go fairly close to where you want to go, but elsewhere tends to be inflexible if it exists. It's useful to provide a carrot occasionally instead of wielding the big stick and using epithets like "Chelsea tractor". Apart from likely being pure class hatred coming from red Ken, it fails to take account of owners paying higher road tax and plenty of fuel tax which is proportional to engine size and consumption.

I would also like to see more news focus on engine and fuel types which either make much more efficient use of scarce oil resources or are more innovative in terms using a different source altogether. No doubt there will be vested interests in there making sure we don't hear about it much!
13

azp,

15/02/2008 08:34:00
Fuel is not actually that expensive it is the taxes that are added that make it so - also what is actually done with these congestion charges - I would also like to look at all the government buildings in London with all their lights especially illumination of parliament is that energy efficient - what a load of nonsense all this carbon footprint nonsense ..
14

Alan Reid,

NZ 16/02/2008 23:10:34
Great idea, hammer the b@stards they can afford it. You still can easly get four kids in a Metro.
15

ianH,

Balerno 29/03/2008 15:38:13
Hi 15, last I heard the metro hasn't been made for some years, can't still be popular in NZ,after all it was crap, plebs not to get new cars? or is this some sort of hair shirt thinking?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.