Forum back online. Please post!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Chelsea choked by its tractors Yummy mummies watch out: your gas-guzzlers are polluting your own streets and a ban may not be too far away Ned Temko, chief political correspondentSunday August 20, 2006The Observer The country's poshest residents are paying the price for their affluent ways. Environmental monitors have revealed that Chelsea is suffering serious damage - from pollution by Chelsea tractors.The discovery that the borough - which has generated more 4x4s than it has spawned Gianfranco shops or Joseph outlets - has been hailed as poetic justice by environmentalists.But for Chelsea residents the news is another setback to driving in the capital's most expensive area. Last month, traffic was restricted on the Albert Bridge after it was found that 4x4 vehicles, essential accessories for celebrities from Gordon Ramsay to Madonna, were seriously damaging its structure. A third of all traffic on the bridge, or about 4,000 vehicles, weighed two tonnes or more.Now residents' groups have written to the government voicing alarm at local pollution levels. They have discovered one pollution monitor near Sloane Street last year registered an average annual level of nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant which can aggravate lung problems, that was two-and-a-half times the recommended World Health Organisation maximum.It was also found that hourly readings have breached WHO limits 268 times so far this year, according to the leading campaigner, Simon Birkett, of the Knightsbridge Association.Birkett, the transport committee chairman for the residents' group, has been trawling data from the government's monitoring stations around Britain for nitrogen dioxide and two other potentially harmful pollutants stoked significantly by the 4x4s: ozone and so-called PM-10, 'particulate matter' measuring less than 10 millimetres which can penetrate deep into the lungs. 'Government ministers, and opposition politicians, are quite rightly telling us that we all have to take responsibility to deal with the environmental dangers at street level,' Birkett says. 'But they should take responsibility, too, in dealing with an immediate danger to people who live in the worst-affected urban areas and those who come to visit, work or shop there.'Another pollution monitor, in the heart of Chelsea's King's Road shopping street, is also well above the WHO's safe maximum levels, added Birkett.The discovery that Chelsea is suffering from the effects of vehicle pollution linked to the form of transport most identified with the borough will be viewed as a delicious irony by environmentalists. The area is famed for its yummy mummies who, it is claimed, cannot do a school run or go on shopping trip of more than a 100 metres without climbing into a giant, three-tonne, air-conditioned vehicle.The news for Chelsea residents is less comforting. The damage to the Albert Bridge caused by 4x4s has forced the local council to introduce restrictions on traffic heading over the Thames.And in future there are likely to be further crackdowns on 4x4s and other large domestic vehicles, including people carriers, for there are growing signs that if environmentalists - or reformed tractor-holics such as actress Thandie Newton - don't push them into a tiny, battery-driven mini-car, the taxman may.Gordon Brown recently announced a £40 surcharge on annual vehicle tax for the big gas-guzzlers. In recent weeks, senior Tories and Liberal Democrats have also made it clear they favour a much steeper charge.And it's not only the usual vehicular suspects that could soon face local residents' wrath. Among the main culprits in spewing out PM-10 - and the even tinier PM-2.5 pollution particles - are diesel engines. Brake pads are another suspect, experts say. Moreover, there is a suspicion that new particle-filter technology in some engines simply results in an increase in nitrogen dioxide.Though public attention to the problem has been dwarfed by the global warming debate, it flared during the sultry heatwave earlier this month, as levels of nitrogen dioxide, ozone and the pollution particles were stoked by the still, hot conditions. Experts warned joggers to stop jogging, noting that hundreds of people had died of causes related to air quality in the heatwave of 2003. Nitrogen dioxide and ozone can jam up airways and cause breathing problems, particularly for people with asthma. PM-10's effects are also potentially serious, since the particles can penetrate deep into the lungs.With the heatwave over, Defra and other pollution-watchers are breathing more easily. Birkett, however, isn't. 'In a number of high-traffic areas, not only in London, this is a problem that is ongoing and risks the health of thousands of people who may not be aware of the danger,' he says.Tractor talesBritish actress Thandie Newton ditched her 4x4 earlier this year for a more environmentally friendly Toyota Prius. Thandie was converted after finding a Greenpeace sticker on the BMW X5 SUV she used to drive. She has since written to dozens of gas-guzzling celebrities, including Jamie Oliver and David Beckham, suggesting they do the same.Chris Martin, the frontman of British band Coldplay, a supporter of fair trade and all things 'green', got people talking last year when he had a prang while driving his 'Chelsea tractor' in London . Fortunately, his vehicle was so much bigger than the Honda he bumped into that it escaped unharmed.Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay is the proud owner of a large people-carrier. He was recently caught driving a 4x4 without a seatbelt in a scene for his hit TV series The F Word, shortly after telling his passengers to belt up. Gordon once topped the leaderboard for the fastest 'Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car' challenge on the TV show Top Gear.Want to follow Thandie's lead? Log on to Stopurban4x4s.org.ukRowan Walker
To whom it may concernI drive a 4x4, I live in a more rural area, it has a 2 litre engine which is far less polluting than your average sports car, when are people going to learn to stop tarring everyone with the same brush?Which would you rather have near you the 2 litre 4x4 with modest emissions (no greater than most family saloons) or the 3.5 litre Jaguar or Mercedes, people are infatuated by size and less inclined to reasoned thought.“Of course we recognise that farmers and others who need a 4x4 for their work should be exempt from the highest rates of tax, and this should be built into any new legislation.†I’m not a farmer I use my car for the purpose it is designed; it gets me through the deep snow in winter and floods which often occur where I live as it’s on a flood plain, but by your blanket logic I should pay much more because I drive a car that prevents me getting stuck in floods, snow etc …. Yes very cleverBecause of unreasoned thought by groups like yourselves you are shouting for 4x4’s to be banned and taxes to go up for all of them.Your logic should be based around emissions and pollution levels not the size of the car – I don’t hear any shouting for ban Jaguars or Mercedes or any other huge gas guzzling polluter other than one with 4 wheel drive.You want cleaner air in cities etc fine try going for lowering car levels within them full stop not shouting oh that car is bigger than mine it must be bad.Under your heading climate change you cite “Climate change is already with us and our increasing use of 4x4s is hurrying it along.â€ÂShow me your evidence……. I guess Mercedes, Jaguar, BMW, Ferrari etc don’t? This is yet another example of blanket nonsense and ill thought reasoning. The truth is you can’t you jump on a bandwagon and decide that if someone said it – it must be true.I can happily speak in this debate because I have an honours degree in Environmental Science and Countryside Management I know the facts.“you will save money†really that’s fantastic new so now I can go out and buy a Porsche – no wait isn’t that far more expensive to run and drinks much more fuel – oops so that’s not quite true either then.Then there is “You are less likely to kill a pedestrian†which of course is a blatant lie, cars don’t kill, the person behind the wheel does, or can you show me a statistic that says other car makes and models do not kill pedestrians – no of course you can’t. I work in a line of work that puts me at the scene of numerous road crashes and I can say with 100% honesty that hardly any of them have been 4x4 vehicles, in fact many were large sports saloons … where is your point now?“People won’t think you are an idiot†ah yes the reasoned debate of anyone whose argument is weak – name calling.“In addition 4x4s all too often intimidate other road users and pedestrians; and are actually less safe for the 4x4 drivers themselves†Really? I often see Mr businessman in his Ford Mondeo or BMW or white van man sitting in my rear mirror trying to intimidate me does that mean they are all bad too – perhaps you should start another campaign!I appreciate your right to cleaner air where you live but such a blanket of lies and false portrayal is really not the way forward.I would suggest instead of wasting tax payer’s money on such ill thought campaigns there should be more put into public transport (which is shockingly poor) to help ease the need for a car in built up areas. Stop more cars coming into large built up urban areas by making it easier for people to get around.Or you could point the finger call names, get 4x4’s banned from your town and then bask in the embarrassing glow that the drivers find another car (which may be less economic and higher polluting) and still drive past your door – then you’ll have to start another campaign – or maybe that’s the point – it gives you something to do.There is nothing more infuriating than seeing people take a logical and serious point on pollution and levels of emissions and turn it into a playground debate with random finger pointing and name calling.Regards
Never ceases to amaze me how blindly ignorant of the facts people can be.I must have one of my tired of nonsense heads on today so I popped into the stopurban4x4 website, had a read, choked on the untruths and ill though rubbish and emailed them :shock:
All that said, we are very grateful for your help with the campaign, and do hope that you have as much fun targeting the 4x4s afflicting your life as we do.
Dear Sir/MadamI wish to make a complaint re the above article. I find your reporting toataly biast and anti-4x4.There are several direct links made by Ned Temko that direct claim that 4x4 vechicles or so called "Chelsea tractors" are directly to blame for air quality and polution.It would seem Mr Temko has made no further effort to investigate any other links to vechicles or other possible sauces of air polution that may have caused the increases he sights in his article.It would seem from the story Mr Temko has taken several small pieces of anti-4x4 propergander from such organisations as the alliance against urban 4x4's and greenpeace etc and cobbled these together to give a story that portrays any person who drives a vechicle that may not run on bean curd and the scent of fresh flowers as public enemy number one.There is no responce from any person connected with either the motor industry or the 4x4 community , also Mr Temko has seen fit to mention the Albert bridge and the claim that "4x4 vehicles, essential accessories for celebrities from Gordon Ramsay to Madonna, were seriously damaging its structure. A third of all traffic on the bridge, or about 4,000 vehicles, weighed two tonnes or more"How many of these vechicles weighing in at over 2 tons are actualy 4x4's ? Can he Mr Temko show us any figures for this? No he cant because they dont exist.Mr Temko has also taken what would seem to be great delight in publisising the alliance against urban 4x4's websight perhaps you may like to redress his biast dross by also mentioning www.4x4prejudice.org .THis sight has a slightly less tainted view and lets people make up there own minds as to the anti-4x4 debate.I await your responce with intrest
What's the betting that Thandie Newton sold the car rather than recycle it!
Whilst their method of reporting is decidedly suspect, and their facts are supported less than Boston United, they aren't pointing the fingers at all 4x4s. We all know the type of vehicle they are against, the bling-tastic pimped out 4x4s that have never seen mud, and let's face it, there have been similar sentiments raised here about 4x4s that never go off-road (BMW X5 anyone?).I am torn. On the one hand, I feel that we each have a right to choose our vehicles, and that no-one should dictate to us what we drive, but on the other hand, these so-called "Chelsea Tractors" are causing problems in urban areas, and it does need to be addressed somehow. Unfortunately, quite often those seeking to address the issues are doing it in an uninformed, and inflammatory way.Just don't ask me what the answer is ...
Just been on the stopurban4x4s website.Now I'm potentially stirring up a hornet's nest, but here are my thoughts:How many of us actually took the time to look at what they are complaining about - they aren't actually moaning about 4x4s in general, just those used exclusively or mainly in urban areas, and definitely not the sort that go out laning.Whilst their method of reporting is decidedly suspect, and their facts are supported less than Boston United, they aren't pointing the fingers at all 4x4s. We all know the type of vehicle they are against, the bling-tastic pimped out 4x4s that have never seen mud, and let's face it, there have been similar sentiments raised here about 4x4s that never go off-road (BMW X5 anyone?).I am torn. On the one hand, I feel that we each have a right to choose our vehicles, and that no-one should dictate to us what we drive, but on the other hand, these so-called "Chelsea Tractors" are causing problems in urban areas, and it does need to be addressed somehow. Unfortunately, quite often those seeking to address the issues are doing it in an uninformed, and inflammatory way.Just don't ask me what the answer is ...
