Government petition condeming diesel car penalties.

[Roverite]

There is an 'Association of British Drivers', that campaigns on behalf of the motoring public, which some of you may be aware of. They try to counteract the ever increasing anti motoring culture, which is vigorously pushed down our throats, by self centered special interest groups, the EU and Parliament. I have now sent the 'Petition' link to them, with a request for support; we shall see what happens.

I was tempted to join them, but the fee is £25 a year, which seems a bit steep for an online 'club', but then I suppose they need funds to fight these elitist bureaucrats. Does any member have further experience of this organisation? They do have a 'Club affiliation' scheme, as well.

Roverite.

[Roverite]

This week's Auto Express states that the planned Nissan replacement for the London Black Cab, is being put on hold. If the proposed 'Ultra Low Emission Zone' for central London is approved, Nissan say that the petrol engined taxi cannot meet the new standard, so, unless the scheme is ditched, Nissan will not make the replacement vehicle.

Roverite.

[Rickoshea]

I think you are flogging a dead horse here as the dangers of diesel pollution becomes ever more apparent and ever more worrying.

Here is the latest salvo:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-9893810.html

I think we are being softened up for a lot of financial "discouragement" to persuade people to abandon the devil's fuel.

[Roverite]

Originally Posted by Rickoshea

I think you are flogging a dead horse here as the dangers of diesel pollution becomes ever more apparent and ever more worrying.

Here is the latest salvo:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-9893810.html

I think we are being softened up for a lot of financial "discouragement" to persuade people to abandon the devil's fuel.

You are probably right on both counts, but, yet again, this is the same sort of guesstimate that is passed off as scientific fact, by people whose job it is to find fault. They have a theory and then look around for something to support it. Then Governments push through legislation which will keep us plebs in our place and at the same time, increase GDP and tax revenues, from all the new vehicles that will be sold. The car makers lap it up, because of increased sales and the vast swathes of people with money to burn take the opportunity to buy the latest toy and are made to feel good about it.

Your 'link' starts by saying that people are dying early because of diesel pollution, then it states 'probably'; what happened to proof? I have never seen an autopsy report stating that somebody has died from traffic pollution; this is just supposition. If it were true, the answer would be to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles, but like smoking, they actually want things to go on as usual, but with a bit more expense to the consumer. The ordinary citizen is expected to give up their car, whilst the wealthy elite can buy the latest super-car that cunsumes four times the fuel that my CDTi consumes, whilst visiting one of their second home mansions, before jetting off somewhere for the day! The hypocrisy of these experts and lobbyists would be comical if it wasn't so serious.

The real problems, at least the ones that affect pollution, have been created by misguided policy changes by successive Governments and commerce, over the last forty years. 'Just in time' supply chains, mean small quantities of stock being delivered daily, instead of once a week/month, which results in many more road journeys. Centralised services, such as large hospitals results in longer journeys for patients and in the case of the Police, centralised custody suites that mean suspects have to be taken on a 30+ mile journey, then returned to the place they were arrested, often by two officers; these are just a couple of examples. Add to this the burgeoning population and the enormous commuting distances some people have, which all adds to travel demand, especially for London and you get some idea of where the issues really are.

I know this is a bit of a rant, but having grown up in London during the 1950s, with the winter smog, the blackened buildings and no fish in the rivers, I have seen enormous improvements in the environment, despite a 30% growth in population and 10 fold increase in vehicle numbers. At least in the 1950s you could see the pollution, but today's claims are mainly invisible. It is OK to make global warming claims, but trying to support it by gathering statistics from the past, is not actually proving anything; has anybody constructed a controlled model world environment and then applied the correct ratio of pollutants to see cause and effect? I think not.

It is possible this post will cause some offense, leading to some 'moderating', but I think the other side needs to be said. I do agree that humans are destructive and wasteful, which is why I tend to live a frugal life style, at least by current standards, but the current approach is based on flawed agendas, primarily by self interest groups that have hang ups about the car and the individuals freedom. The majority of ordinary people are at the point of not trusting anything the 'authorities' say, as witnessed by the after effects of the Scottish referendum; is it any wonder?

Roverite.

[Roverite]

Originally Posted by Roverite

There is an 'Association of British Drivers', that campaigns on behalf of the motoring public, which some of you may be aware of. They try to counteract the ever increasing anti motoring culture, which is vigorously pushed down our throats, by self centered special interest groups, the EU and Parliament. I have now sent the 'Petition' link to them, with a request for support; we shall see what happens.

I was tempted to join them, but the fee is £25 a year, which seems a bit steep for an online 'club', but then I suppose they need funds to fight these elitist bureaucrats. Does any member have further experience of this organisation? They do have a 'Club affiliation' scheme, as well.

Roverite.

Well, I sent them an E-mail with the link, they then sent a reply asking me to send it to another E-mail address, but this was rejected, twice, so I gave up!

Roverite.

[wraymond]

The road to Hell is tarmacced with good intentions. After reading the petition I don't see how any responsible government agency will even consider it because it contains no salient facts - just assumptions. It will fail because it is in fact, vague, and those that are responsible for accepting it as valid need precision.

I'd be happy to support it, however, if you have a link to the actual proposals (rather than a jounalist's spin, and of course I assume they are merely proposals at the moment), which support your (and others) analysis of the changes and the ultimate consequences. In the meantime, good luck with it.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by MGJohn

Aint that the truth!

The cumulative effect of all those numerous good intentions is the main reason this Nation is in the state it is in with very few if any tangible or credible signs that things will get better.

I've long since given up believing any Government can create an environment to improve things for the Nation as a whole rather than just diminishing segments thereof. No one Government will do that, only the people can. If they have it in them.

Trouble is, too many folks spend their time pointing the finger of blame in just about any direction except where it really belongs.

There you go. Bet that's cheered you all up.... Oh yes

There's a lot of truth in that. The problem is sincere resistance fails because of vested interests, so future resistance seems futile. However, there are other factors involved that the public either refuse to believe, don't understand, or are not told about.

Government is not about simplistic single issues, however serious they may be to the protestor. Everything that is proposed affects everything else and has to be taken into consideration on a global scale.

For instance, Oil. That's 'big' oil. In the sense that if the West upsets S. Arabia, watch out, they have influence all over the world and can and would wreak havoc with supplies (also incidentally massive military equipment sales with UK). For some, that might be a good thing but the effect on the country of origin would be disastrous. The current drop in petrol prices is almost entirely due to USA hugely increased production of oil as a result of fracking and flooding the international market with cheap oil.

It doesn't matter what the gov. does, it can never satisfy an active opponent, it all comes down to ideology in the end.

[SD1too]

Originally Posted by Roverite

Your 'link' starts by saying that people are dying early because of diesel pollution, then it states 'probably'; what happened to proof? I have never seen an autopsy report stating that somebody has died from traffic pollution; this is just supposition.

It's unscientific claptrap, but the government will swallow it.

Simon

[Roverite]

Originally Posted by wraymond

The road to Hell is tarmacced with good intentions. After reading the petition I don't see how any responsible government agency will even consider it because it contains no salient facts - just assumptions. It will fail because it is in fact, vague, and those that are responsible for accepting it as valid need precision.

I'd be happy to support it, however, if you have a link to the actual proposals (rather than a jounalist's spin, and of course I assume they are merely proposals at the moment), which support your (and others) analysis of the changes and the ultimate consequences. In the meantime, good luck with it.

As the originator of the E-petition, I think I need to respond. These proposals are being regularly publicised, because the UK and London in particular, has failed to achieve their impossible promises to reduce pollution and they are now looking around for someone else to blame. The London proposal isn't just for diesels, it is for all pre 2006 vehicles that use oil based fuels.

The specific of the petition is, "...current 'tax' rates frozen for older cars and new tax regimes only applying to new cars, where buyers have a choice". The proposals are for 2020, by which time most of the pre 2006 vehicles will have long gone, so the few that are left, will be of little consequence. However, since the petition was started, there has been a lot of speculation about another £2,000 scrappage scheme, with the intention of hastening the demise of our R40s.

The proposals are not yet 'fact', so the petition had to be about 'assumptions'. However, I thought it was no good waiting until it had been approved and then start weeping and wailing about it, when it would then be too late. We are constantly bombarded with 'possibilities', which are often testing public reaction; if there is little or no reaction, it just happens and we all bleat about it afterwards.

It will never reach the 100,000 signatures required, but I felt it was actually worth trying to do something, instead of sitting back in resignation.

I will try harder next time.

Roverite.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by Roverite

As the originator of the E-petition, I think I need to respond. These proposals are being regularly publicised, because the UK and London in particular, has failed to achieve their impossible promises to reduce pollution and they are now looking around for someone else to blame. The London proposal isn't just for diesels, it is for all pre 2006 vehicles that use oil based fuels.

The specific of the petition is, "...current 'tax' rates frozen for older cars and new tax regimes only applying to new cars, where buyers have a choice". The proposals are for 2020, by which time most of the pre 2006 vehicles will have long gone, so the few that are left, will be of little consequence. However, since the petition was started, there has been a lot of speculation about another £2,000 scrappage scheme, with the intention of hastening the demise of our R40s.

The proposals are not yet 'fact', so the petition had to be about 'assumptions'. However, I thought it was no good waiting until it had been approved and then start weeping and wailing about it, when it would then be too late. We are constantly bombarded with 'possibilities', which are often testing public reaction; if there is little or no reaction, it just happens and we all bleat about it afterwards.

It will never reach the 100,000 signatures required, but I felt it was actually worth trying to do something, instead of sitting back in resignation.

I will try harder next time.

Roverite.

You don't need to try harder next time, not for me anyway, I get all that (for the second time)!
I was asking for a direct link confirming the gov's proposals because I feel reluctant to accept extrapolations of assumptions made from guesswork! All I have been able to glean is that the published proposals are a journalist's feverish interpretation of a 'leak' from a think tank!

While I agree with the general principle (other than anti-gov rhetoric), it would be nice to see the actual words before I sign a petition and thereby have some basis on which to form an opinion. However all this is resulting in what is beginning to be mired in misunderstanding, at least on my part. My request seems reasonable to me, maybe I'm missing something. As I said, good luck.