The Hootsman tells us that the cuntcil are running a consultation on the proposed increase in parking charges for higher polluting vehicles.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but a vehicle that is parked is not polluting. It's when it is running that it is... So perhaps encouraging people to leave their vehicles parked would be the way forward. The vitriol between the luddites, and sane people in the comments is quite entertaining, if it weren't so tragic. 4x4s are baaaaad, they bleat. Forgetting that so many estate cars and large saloons favoured by those with families are just as big and just as polluting.
What this looks like is a simple case of the council trying to screw motorists in the city, and using supposed green arguments as an excuse. Mostly because the cuntcillors will be taking taxis everywhere, paid for by us, so what do they care? Bastards.
One commenter links to The Glasgow Herald. (They call it The Herald now, but some of us are old enough to remember when they weren't ashamed to have a west coast bias). Apparently Glasgow council had the sense to listen to their residents... Makes a change. Last time Edinburgh asked us what we thought, and we said no, the cuntcil spanked us by inflicting a tram line on us.
Why don't you take this opporchancity to tell the bastards what you think of their plans?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
But the proposals wouldn't spank Edinburgh motorists. In fact, most of them would be better off. It's only people who drive cars with stupid big engines, or have two cars who'd be worse off. Even if you have a big family or are disabled, you don't 'need' a car with a 3.0 litre engine. In fact, given the pollution they cause, a litte incentive to get these cars off the road is a good thing surely?
"Higher polluting vehicles" is just council double speak for higher parking charges for drivers who can afford to pay more...
"adopted": Ridiculous. "You don't NEED x" is such a bandied about phrase by the econo-hippy-nazis. What i need and don't need, as an edinburgh motorist, is up to me to determine. I have a town runabout for the city, but my other car happens to be a turbocharged 3 litre petrol. I consider myself to "need" that, merely to maintain my sanity on my commute along the terribly kept, undermaintained roads that this same council is responsible for taking care of. A 3 litre engine is nothing in the grander pollution scheme of things, especially when all of edinburgh is primarily powered by a bloody coal power station. I already pay a monster increase in road tax on that, a monster amount in insurance, a monster monster tax on my already monster fuel bill (77p of every pound being tax) with VAT on top of that - not to mention the price of tyres for the damn thing, and so forth. The money i pump into the economy simply by keeping it on the road is orders of magnitude more than a regular city-centre parker would spend parking daily at the highest rated meters in edinburgh. Just because i choose to spend extra on something i value, it doesn't follow that i'd be cool with spending more on something i shouldn't be charged for in the first place. Fortunately those city centre regulars in the know (or anyone with half a clue really) won't ever pay to park in edinburgh anyway, there are enough tricks and secret carparks you can use that it doesnt become an issue. And they're the places you see all the "real" cars rather than the shopping trollies anyway, so this is another misguided tax on the poor needy commuter rather than anything resembling sensibility - exactly like the damn congestion charge they tried to shoehorn in before!
Love you'r logic.
What is the top speed of a 3 litre 4x4? Much more than a smokey old bus, that's for sure.
How often does a 4x4 stop in the middle of the road to pick up passengers? Seldom if at all.
Which of the two vehicles therefore causes more polution and traffic holdups?
I say ban these slow, fume belching, useless (there's never one there when you want it anyway) buses fron the city centre altogether.
Post a Comment