From: JNugent on
Adrian wrote:

> JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com>:

>> If those "costs" include specifically-targeted spite taxes

> And what "specifically-targeted spite taxes" affect 4x4s?

The one that immediately springs to mind is the differentially-higher charge
that some London Borough(s) boasts/boast of making for a residents' parking
permit*. Higher for a vehicle in the Range-Rover class than for (say) a Jag
or a Roller on the basis of spite and grandstanding (however dressed up as
something else).

There may be others.

The irrational attitude of some - especially of some of those in authority -
to these vehicles is odd.



[*Not that I am in any sense a fan of residents' parking schemes or similar
pre-emptions.]
From: Adrian on
JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>> If those "costs" include specifically-targeted spite taxes

>> And what "specifically-targeted spite taxes" affect 4x4s?

> The one that immediately springs to mind is the differentially-higher
> charge that some London Borough(s) boasts/boast of making for a
> residents' parking permit*. Higher for a vehicle in the Range-Rover
> class than for (say) a Jag or a Roller on the basis of spite and
> grandstanding (however dressed up as something else).

Care to provide any link to show that - say - a CR-V would be noticeably
differently priced to - say - a Mondeo? No, thought not.

Again, you seem to be confusing CO2-based pricing differences with this
notional "4x4 spite tax"
From: JNugent on
Adrian wrote:
> JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>>> If those "costs" include specifically-targeted spite taxes
>
>>> And what "specifically-targeted spite taxes" affect 4x4s?
>
>> The one that immediately springs to mind is the differentially-higher
>> charge that some London Borough(s) boasts/boast of making for a
>> residents' parking permit*. Higher for a vehicle in the Range-Rover
>> class than for (say) a Jag or a Roller on the basis of spite and
>> grandstanding (however dressed up as something else).
>
> Care to provide any link to show that - say - a CR-V would be noticeably
> differently priced to - say - a Mondeo? No, thought not.
>
> Again, you seem to be confusing CO2-based pricing differences with this
> notional "4x4 spite tax"

Perhaps others are. I merely report what they say.

There are plenty of LBR committee reports on the internet wherein residents
of that borough complain that they are being penalised for having a 4x4 (no,
I don't why they "need" them either, but it has never been a requirement of
ownership).

As an example of the semi-braindead attitude I refer to, I can do no better
than offer you:

<http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23614365-tame-londons-4x4-parking-road-hogs.do>


From: Adrian on
JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>>>> If those "costs" include specifically-targeted spite taxes

>>>> And what "specifically-targeted spite taxes" affect 4x4s?

>>> The one that immediately springs to mind is the differentially-higher
>>> charge that some London Borough(s) boasts/boast of making for a
>>> residents' parking permit*. Higher for a vehicle in the Range-Rover
>>> class than for (say) a Jag or a Roller on the basis of spite and
>>> grandstanding (however dressed up as something else).

>> Care to provide any link to show that - say - a CR-V would be
>> noticeably differently priced to - say - a Mondeo? No, thought not.
>>
>> Again, you seem to be confusing CO2-based pricing differences with this
>> notional "4x4 spite tax"

> Perhaps others are. I merely report what they say.

Nice cop-out.

> There are plenty of LBR committee reports on the internet wherein
> residents of that borough complain that they are being penalised for
> having a 4x4 (no, I don't why they "need" them either, but it has never
> been a requirement of ownership).
>
> As an example of the semi-braindead attitude I refer to, I can do no
> better than offer you:
>
> <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23614365-tame-
londons-4x4-parking-road-hogs.do>

Yep, thought Richmond would be the one you'd mention.

It's CO2-based. Nothing to do with "4x4s".
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/transport_and_streets/
motor_vehicles_roads_and_parking/parking/car_parking_permits/
residents_parking_permits.htm
or
http://snipurl.com/uunt

"The cost of permits are based on:
<snip>
* The engine carbon dioxide emissions or cylinder capacity of the
vehicle
<snip>"
From: boltar2003 on
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:35:04 +0000
JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>The irrational attitude of some - especially of some of those in authority -
>to these vehicles is odd.

Not at all odd. Its just another example of cynical and generally useless
politicians going after easy targets to appease a vocal minority of eco
nutters instead of tackling real problems.

Most people in cities who own large cars are likely to be middle class, ergo
reasonably well off and hence a good source of income from fines/charges/taxes
etc.

B2003