New X5 beats London congestion charge - take that, Livingstone!

By Jezza #1, Posted: 8/21/2007

Awesome news, guys. Ken Livingstone is a true idiot.

By Bender #2, Posted: 8/21/2007

But don't you all see, that without Livingstone's congestion charge there wouldn't be such a move from the auto makers? I think this is exactly what's important - not to deter SUVs, but to deter big polluters.

By HECTOR #3, Posted: 8/21/2007

@ Bender: apparently you think that your beliefs - and those of Red Ken - are the word of god and therefore MUST be imposed one way or the other on the rest of us. I, and many like me, do not believe in global warming or that humans are responsible for whatever alleged rise in temperature there has been. I don't care whether you drive a Prius or an H2 or how much *pollution* you put out of your tailpipe.

And SUV owners already pay more than the rest of us: they have to fill up more on gas and they pay the corresponding taxes, in many countries vehicles are taxed by their weight so SUVs pay more, etc, etc.

Red Ken is a hard line socialist who thinks that he knows best than the rest of us and since he's been elected, what?, twice by Londoners he thinks he has a blank check to impose his non-sensical beliefs on the rest of us.

As long as they don't try to do it in Miami he can force all Londoners to ride a skateboard to work for all I care...

By Alex #4, Posted: 8/21/2007

Whether this Livingstone is right or wrong is another issue. The fact of the matter is that he got what he wanted. If you didn't want him to succeed in what he is doing, you should be appalled that BMW and Lexus "caved in" and designed less polluting cars.

By Gunnar Heinrich #5, Posted: 8/21/2007

Hooray for BMW. It is absolutely absurd that upon all the other taxes that the British have to pay for their right to drive, those that live in metropolitan London have to contend with that commie crank and his damned congestion zone fees.

How much has the Tube actually improved from these funds? Is the air in London actually cleaner? Or is government just getting richer and the people getting poorer?

By Steven #6, Posted: 8/21/2007

The lower emissions will make SFA difference to the actual amount of pollution in London, which is why this is such a farce. Also, just because the C02 emissions are slightly less it doesn\'t mean the environmental effects are reduced. There are things to think about like catalytic converters and batteries.

By Bender #7, Posted: 8/22/2007

Hector - yeah, it's surely obvious you're from the United States of Amercaland...

By Global Warmer #8, Posted: 8/23/2007

I don't see why Ken doesn't repeal the clean air act, that did nothing for the air in London, mind you neither did Bazelgette's sewers either, It wasn't man's fault that the air was full of pollutants and the river full of sewage it's just nature's way.

Why on earth would you want you cars to be more polluting. If BMW could build them creating less pollution why did it take this measure to get them to do so? Are you seriously advocating that they should make their cars more polluting just because you don't believe it makes any difference.

I don't care whether mankind affects Global Warming or not either. What I care about is not walking round London choking on the fumes, getting home and having to shower from the filth that coats you and blowing your nose and having the contents come out black. If manufacturers and customers refuse to produce and use less polluting cars by choice, (and they don't, if they did they would all be in Smarts and Japanese minicars by now) then they'll get treated like children and told "it'll cost you". Seems fair enough to me.