Congestion Charge goes to £25 in October

I do sympathise and worry about manufacturers of electric cars trying to muscle in on that market as a consequence. However, the owners of those cars can still carry on emitting lower emissions elsewhere, just not in Central London, where no form of motorised carriage is really a contribution to the solution. Obviously, as it hasn't increased with inflation, the Congestion Charge is pretty toothless, anyway (and was set too low initially).

Anyone got a list of the vehicles still exempt? The article lists those no longer exempt, but it's impossible to tell what that means without knowing what's still exempt?

I can see the argument about moving the goalposts, but that logic would suggest not changing anything ever?

I am affected by this personally, as is everyone who breathes in London. It is a gentle proposal, people can register under the current rules until July then get free access until 2015.

It will raise an extra £1 million to £2 million a year — helping to reverse a £60 million slump in revenue since the scrapping of the zone’s western extension.
As yet it is only a consultation. To make it happen you have to tell them what you think** tfl.gov.uk/ccyourviews**

They should charge diesels extra, and then later on ban them altogether.

I am affected by this personally, as is everyone who breathes in London.

So not many people, then.

^ almost no one, whats all the fuss about? just ban all people from london and then the cars can make as much shite as they like..oh wait

They should charge diesels extra, and then later on ban them altogether.

In the heavily congested and polluted cities of the Asian country I hail from, they did this.

All trucks, buses, taxi's etc are LPG now. Just shows its possible, even for a developing country.

25 quid is NOT enough. Access should not be reserved for the rich but should be blocked to all.
London does not need motorcars. I would ban them completely as in Zermatt, the center of towns like Maastricht, Gent, ... Electric cars are mainly just Methadone for car junkies (the auto and gas industries are fighting their opium war) little different from and as an option for those that truely need motorized individual transportation such as police, medical/psychological care (includes also priests, rabbis, imams, etc.) , fire dept, etc.
Without the roads clogged with cars other forms of mass transport start working well and bicycles become more attractive on a mass level. Given limits on manpower and costs I don't imagine the void could be filled with electric taxis.

+2^24 to EdwardZ

Jolly nice ideas but please remember that we live in a democracy and any politician putting forward such a proposal before persuading the majority of its sanity would not be elected.

What not devote your energies to finding effective means of persuasion?

Please note the word effective and please also note that the majority of people are not so enlightened as you.

Jolly nice ideas but please remember that we live in a democracy

Leaving aside discussions as to if the UK is a democracy.. Its a question of public health and individual rights. Motorcars are not self-harm as narcotics but makes 2nd hand cigarette smoke seem like a poor joke. Lets not even talk about CO2, polution and its impact on global warming blah blah.. Lets not even talk about global oil-fed terrorism and its impact on limiting civil rights.. lets not even talk about the massive property damage caused by motor exhaust... beyond all of the direct economic and social costs.. in the UK today it is the main killer of 16-24 year olds.. In the US in any 3 month period more Americans will die in auto accidents that the total casualties of the so-called "War on Terror" (itself fueld by oil) since 2001 (Iraq, Afgahnistan etc.).. And what does the car deliver? Freedom? Freedom to sit in traffic.. Ever talk to a junkie about their addiction?

and any politician putting forward such a proposal before persuading the majority of its sanity would not be elected.

That is why most of the West economies are in deep trouble. Politicians want to get elected and if that means to side step the issues to not make waves with sponsors such as petrochemicals, automobiles, arms makers etc. Instead of investing in education-- the UK thinks they can solve their education problem by mandating foreign language teaching in elementary school--- and improving infrastructure, the UK like the US lets things just fall apart.. The US government saved "GM".. it did not really save "GM".. only really the pensions.. the problems with "GM" are still there.. Other than a pile of money.. it put off the kind of restructuring that the US needed.. Its major effect was to get Obama votes in Ohio.. but the rust belt is still rusting... Lower taxes get votes. Its the divide between personal interest-- pay less tax-- and public interest.. When the state fails in its own legitimation all that remains is personal interest.. and that means the want to pay less tax.. and a continued free fall..

Please note the word effective and please also note that the majority of people are not so enlightened as you.

Reminds me of the story of how Lenin came to his philosophy we call "Leninism" as expoused in his pamphet "Was tun" ("What is to be done"). On his way home from a failed worker's demonstation--- hardly anyone came--- at Munich's Karlsplatz he observed out of the window of his tram on the way home a bar filled with workers (the Schelling Salon which in the mid 1930s was a favorite haunt of Eva Braun and her Adolf).. he realized that one can free slaves but they don't stop being slaves..

But slaves can and have freed themselves at various times.. From the Israelites to .....

You seem to have stopped before making your point?

Jolly nice ideas but please remember that we live in a democracy and any politician putting forward such a proposal before persuading the majority of its sanity would not be elected.
Because the activities of elected political parties are always in line with their manifesto pledges and pre-election promises, and they always seek a mandate from the electorate before they legislate.

This is a good move:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/end-of-the-free-green-run-now-hybrid-cars-will-have-to-pay-congestion-charge-too-8469699.html

This will perhaps reclaim Smart cars and Minis from estate agents.

In the US in any 3 month period more Americans will die in auto accidents that the total casualties of the so-called "War on Terror" (itself fueld by oil) since 2001 (Iraq, Afgahnistan etc.)

This claim is blatantly false. Annual road traffic fatalities in the US are now in the low 30,000s, which means roughly 8-9,000 per quarter. The so-called 'War on Terror' has certainly cost far more lives than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardZ
In the US in any 3 month period more Americans will die in auto accidents that the total casualties of the so-called "War on Terror" (itself fueld by oil) since 2001 (Iraq, Afgahnistan etc.)

This claim is blatantly false. Annual road traffic fatalities in the US are now in the low 30,000s, which means roughly 8-9,000 per quarter. The so-called 'War on Terror' has certainly cost far more lives than that.

He means American casualties at a guess. Towelheads don't count.

Towelheads? How about you take that sort of racist crap and fuck off?

Is that for real?

Towelheads? How about you take that sort of racist crap and fuck off?

Steady. My reading of that was that it was an ironic reference to how quite a few right-wing US arseholes view the relative values of different people's live.

But if it wasn't that then he can indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardZ
In the US in any 3 month period more Americans will die in auto accidents that the total casualties of the so-called "War on Terror" (itself fueld by oil) since 2001 (Iraq, Afgahnistan etc.)

He means American casualties at a guess. Towelheads don't count.

From the perspective of U.S. policy and its mandate to its own population foreign nationals don't count. Where foreign ememy combatant casualties enter the picture is as a measure of effectiveness. The short term goals of war is too hurt the other side as much as possible and to minimize own's own damage as much as possible. For a conventional military such as the UK and US damage is causalties. The asymetry of the "war on terror" is that the goals of Arab and Muslim terror is less to minimize their own casualties and maximize the casualties of their enemies but to maximize both the hurt and the claims to victimization--- often self-hurting or even sacrificing their own population. That is why rape, castration and other forms of mutilation, untargeted rockets, bombs targetting either symbolic objects (such as the World Trade Center, Jewish Community Centers, momuments etc.) and other targets to create the most hurt (hotels, discos, public events, children's birthday parties etc.) are, on the one hand, widely deployed and, on the other, a network of media to stress victimization-- and when that is not sufficient one just invents a bit (Muhammad al-Durrah).
Where the US and UK are at loggerheads is over influence in the region. The UK has been a direct competitor to the U.S. in the Middle East ever since 1940 when British companies lost to American in Saudi Arabia. This continues to be a key component of British Middle East policy. Its the stuff that prompts Whitehall to provide protection to convicted terrorists (release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, for example, in exchange for the hope of better trade conditions with Libya) and drove the UK back in WW-II to support the liquidation of Jews in concentration camps "to not interfere with British interests in the Middle East"--- British immigration policy to German refugees was not as liberal as it claimed but was installed as a valve to try to control migration to Palestine.
Today, of course, we have a new player up against both: China.

C Charge has a chance to get it less wrong this time... and where on earth did the media get this idea that electricity or lpg is 'green?' Nuts. It's still fossil fuels (or mostly, in the case of electricity, the other element coming from lovely environmentally friendly nuke power).

C Charge has a chance to get it less wrong this time... and where on earth did the media get this idea that electricity or lpg is 'green?' Nuts. It's still fossil fuels (or mostly, in the case of electricity, the other element coming from lovely environmentally friendly nuke power).

LPG is, of course, not "green" but Co2 emissions are about 15% less than petrol. Natural gas (from Russia with love) has about 1/4 less Co2 emissions than petrol.
Is electricity "green"? It can be. While most of it is not green it need not continue to be "ungreen". Petrol is never green--- not even the so-called "bio-petrol". Right now the most significant roadblock to "green electricity" (e.g. not produced by fossil or nuclear fuels) is not production but distribution. Taking small scale solar, wind and water power generation into a distribution network is one of the biggest problems on the table. The power grids were developed with a model of few large capacity central generating plants-- designed to meet max. peek demands--- and many recipients. The new emerging need is for a highly distributed network with many small to micro scale providers. The german electricity network is, for example, already so overwhelmed by supply that the government is looking to cut subsidies to try to keep it within the limits of network growth.