Utah 01 Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Albert 'with the additional monies collected used to counter pollution i.e. collect CO2, R&D into better transport and education programmes etc. to try and maintain/lower overall levels of pollution.' An admirable sentiment but you know and I know that the extra revenue raised by this tax increase will disappear into government coffers to benefit, no doubt, this 'topsy' governent we endure. If Braidwood was serious about reducing pollution on the Island, he and the 'government' in general would push and push for a superb and world leading public transport system which this Isalnd is ideally suited to support. 'The People' have to be given an incentive to leave their cars at home and if that means vastly subsidised fares (it would cost £12.80 to take my family to Douglas and back by bus - why can't we adopt a flat-fare system of a say 50p on any route within 4 miles of Douglas and £1 on any route anywhere else on the island), a free park-and-ride system for Douglas, the construction of a rapid transit system between the main centres of population, then that is the price government must pay (and bear in mind that when government spends money - it is OUR money) for the good of the population - not hike an extra £70 on a few vehicles which probably contribute negligible amounts of pollutants compared to those I listed in my previous post. The tax rise is a hollow publicity stunt to asuage the green lobby and make the government look as if it 'serious' about vehicle pollution. The reality is that it will achieve nothing until some radical thought is given to the Island's domestic transport needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 The other thing I don't understand is why 4x4 drivers are referred to as "idiots" or "bigshots", what are the arguments against 4x4's? why are they vilified all the time and their owners insulted? Its down to the way people choose to waste precious resources. At petrol the price it is only an idiot decides that it is their right to use a vehicle that does 15mpg to basically do the job that a small hatchback could do quite adequately. That is why 4 x 4 owners should be vilified because out of pure vanity they voluntarily burn three times the fuel they need in some warped ego boost directed at other motorists. The argument is different if its a working vehicle, or a classic that is used sunny days only, but by and large anyone who feels that they have to drive some tank around to do the school run and the weekly shop because it they think it makes them look good should pay for that previledge. That is not being envious ... its pure common sense as most of us try to be socially responsible in the way we use fossil fuels and manage traffic conjestion. The roads in the IOM are terrible and having some 2 ton tank churn them up on the school rum puts all our road taxes up, because we all pay for repairs equally when its the heavier vehicles that do more damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cholmondley-Warner Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 The other thing I don't understand is why 4x4 drivers are referred to as "idiots" or "bigshots", what are the arguments against 4x4's? why are they vilified all the time and their owners insulted? Its down to the way people choose to waste precious resources. At petrol the price it is only an idiot decides that it is their right to use a vehicle that does 15mpg to basically do the job that a small hatchback could do quite adequately. That is why 4 x 4 owners should be vilified because out of pure vanity they voluntarily burn three times the fuel they need in some warped ego boost directed at other motorists. The argument is different if its a working vehicle, or a classic that is used sunny days only, but by and large anyone who feels that they have to drive some tank around to do the school run and the weekly shop because it they think it makes them look good should pay for that previledge. That is not being envious ... its pure common sense as most of us try to be socially responsible in the way we use fossil fuels and manage traffic conjestion. The roads in the IOM are terrible and having some 2 ton tank churn them up on the school rum puts all our road taxes up, because we all pay for repairs equally when its the heavier vehicles that do more damage. If someone can afford to run whatever car/4x4 they choose, why are they then an idiot? I don't see the correlation, it's a matter of personal choice which is the benefit of living in a free democracy. Where are you getting the 15 mpg figure from? Manufacturers figure for the Land Rover Defender 90 Td5 is given as 28.2 mpg whereas an average type family car, say a Ford Mondeo 2.0i LX Estate is 30.7 mpg - (Auto) Why are you under the strange illusion that 4 x 4 owners have a superiority complex and look down on you, could it not be you who has an inferiority complex? I know lots of people who are car drivers and 4 x 4 drivers, I can't say that I know anyone who I would class as having a "warped ego boost" from driving a 4 x 4, you really should take medical advice if you have these strange feelings of inferiority. I admire your social conscience in doing your bit for the environment, by the way how are you actually managing traffic congestion better than those 4 x 4 drivers? Enlighten please how the so called two tonne tank that is a 4 x 4 is actually churning up our terrible roads. Personally I find nothing particulalry amiss with the Islands roads - they could not by any strecth of the imagination be described as terrible, but why do you believe that a 4 x 4 causes more damage? Did you know that the reason a 4 x 4 is so good off road? well it is not only because it has 4 wheel drive but it also has large tyres to spread its weight, it is a low ground pressure vehicle and it's tyre footprint is larger so it doesn't actually do any more damage than a normal car and in fact probably does less becuase its acceleration and cornering speed does not compare to a car. Just to compare our Land Rover and Ford Mondeo, the respective kerb weights are 1870kg and 1437kg, do you really think that 433 kilos makes the slightest difference to wear and tear on our roads? If you want to know where the damage to roads occurs then you have to look to buses and trucks, the maximum axle loads permitted are 10 tonne per axle and maximum gross vehcile weight of an artic can be 38 tonne on 5 axles - and you think a 4 x 4 does damage to our roads?????? The 38 tonne truck by the way will currently pay some £1551 per annum and will have been annually tested. Oh yes, can you tell us what this amazing eco-friendly vehicle is that you drive, a 2Cv perhaps, do you also have an unkempt beard? perhaps you should think about growing one. So you still haven't provided any good argument against 4 x4's, apart from you don't like them so everyone who drives one, farmers and sunny day classic owners excepted, is an idiot! Link to ABD site http://www.abd.org.uk/4x4.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Cholmondley-Warner' date='Jul 19 2006, 12:23 AM' post='172204']Why are you under the strange illusion that 4 x 4 owners have a superiority complex and look down on you, could it not be you who has an inferiority complex? I know lots of people who are car drivers and 4 x 4 drivers, I can't say that I know anyone who I would class as having a "warped ego boost" from driving a 4 x 4, you really should take medical advice if you have these strange feelings of inferiority . I think your comments reinforce the view that you think you are superior. I admire your social conscience in doing your bit for the environment, by the way how are you actually managing traffic congestion better than those 4 x 4 drivers? Er ... taking up less space on the roads, freeing up more parking, driving less aggressively than the average 4 x 4 driver. Enlighten please how the so called two tonne tank that is a 4 x 4 is actually churning up our terrible roads. Personally I find nothing particulalry amiss with the Islands roads - Heavier vehicles do cause more wear and tear on tarmac. particularly in town where power steering magnifies the effect of the weight. If you find nothing amiss with Manx roads I suggest that you probably don't get out much. Oh yes, can you tell us what this amazing eco-friendly vehicle is that you drive, a 2Cv perhaps, do you also have an unkempt beard? perhaps you should think about growing one. Yes everyone who hates 4 x 4's is a hippy. Yes I'm a hippy and I feel so inferior to everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Where are you getting the 15 mpg figure from? Manufacturers figure for the Land Rover Defender 90 Td5 is given as 28.2 mpg whereas an average type family car, say a Ford Mondeo 2.0i LX Estate is 30.7 mpg - (Auto) Now your comparing a manual diesel to an automatic petrol! I wonder what the mpg figures are for something like a petrol 3.0L X5 etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Er ... taking up less space on the roads, freeing up more parking, Just on that one point, last time I checked a Land Rover 90 takes up marginally less space that a Ford Fiesta. You could probably do similar comparisons for larger 4x4. They might be tall, but they don't really take up more space on the roads. A glance at the road outside my officw window suggests that a BMW 3 series is about the same footprint as an Isuzu Trooper. Talking of BMWs, their 2.0L diesel X3 4x4 is "greener" than their Mini Cooper S Edit - Depending on the year, the Trooper is 5 inches longer and 3 inches wider than the BMW 3 series. You'd have to drive pretty damn close together to notice the extra 5 inches it takes up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Talking of BMWs, their 2.0L diesel X3 4x4 is "greener" than their Mini Cooper S The tax category going up is 3,500cc plus - this is where it all started. So its V8 Disco's, Range Rovers, big Shoguns, big engined X5's and, t**t machine to end all t**t machines, the Cayenne and the like I'm criticising. I'm not getting into an argument about how long a SWB Landy is. Or how good a BMW turbo diesel is. Its the 3,500 cc plus cars is where the arguments started, and as I say if you can run one you can pay a few hundred quid a year for all I care because they are wasteful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 But the 3.5L tax doesn't affect the likes of scoobs and m3's etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 The tax category going up is 3,500cc plus - this is where it all started. So its V8 Disco's, Range Rovers, big Shoguns, big engined X5's and, t**t machine to end all t**t machines, the Cayenne and the like I'm criticising. Oh dear, you're not gonna like these then... Hummer H6 International CXT - The world's largest private pick-up truck. Both awesome machines I would definitely buy if the funds were available - does that make me a t**t, or just someone who has a different taste in a free world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Both awesome machines I would definitely buy if the funds were available - does that make me a t**t, or just someone who has a different taste in a free world? Don't ask questions unless you're absolutely certain that you want to hear the answers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Both awesome machines I would definitely buy if the funds were available - does that make me a t**t, or just someone who has a different taste in a free world? You're free to drive what you want ... but if you feel your ego is that frail that you must go to Tesco's in a Hummer H6 at 6mpg I am suggesting that you pay for the extra road you take up, the extra weight tearing up the tarmac, and the horrendous rate at which you burn unleaded fuel. I reckon £1,000 road fund license in both cases. We are free to buy and drive what we want, but those who choose to be environmentally irresponsible should pay extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 You're free to drive what you want ... but if you feel your ego is that frail that you must go to Tesco's in a Hummer H6 at 6mpg Frail Ego? Ever considered that I might simply like unusual cars? I love the Smart as well - hardly a car for someone with a frail ego... I am suggesting that you pay for the extra road you take up, the extra weight tearing up the tarmac, and the horrendous rate at which you burn unleaded fuel. I am already paying extra for that - through the tax on fuel - I always thought that was kinda the point of it... We are free to buy and drive what we want, but those who choose to be environmentally irresponsible should pay extra. Just btw - that CXT Monster up there is probably more environmentally friendly than a 5 year old Mondeo Diesel - a: because it runs with the newest filter technology and is so clean emission wise, the company behind it even builds engines for the emission mad state of California (Green Diesel Technology) and b: the first engine overhaul is scheduled at 500.000 miles, meaning it outlives 20 Mondeos. That Hummer, I admit, is a bit useless - looks good, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.