Just scrap VED and put the tax on fuel, the more you burn, the more you pay.
Much less admin for the DVLA too, so a huge saving there
The folks that that can buy a new monster sized car every few year will simply buy a monster sized electric car.
Ok, so less local pollution but all the other big car problems and waste, except you won't hear it coming.
I suppose charging points could have their own meter and heavily taxed rate, which would help make up the VED shortfall too and avoid the need for road charging.
Although you can't have Red Electricity so open to fraud. But that's not really a crime according to our government.
Your statement in itself shows how people will do what ever the frick they want unless it’s legislated against.
Two kids is one too many too IMO, but I know that's not going to be a popular one. But people should definitely be penalised for buying new cars, cars that are too big and houses that are too big.
@irc - why are you moving so much stuff all the time? Why are you thinking of sacrificing those in small cars when if everyone had a small car the danger in a collision would be the same?
I have a small house, one child and have one holiday a year. Ok, I have a couple of big motors.
My point is about freedom of choice.
I'm not moving stuff all the time. But when I am having space is good. Currently doing a bit of fencing and being able to stick 3m long loads inside the car is convenient. The car is also big enough for me to sleep in the back at 6ft3 without being cramped. Not a frequent thing but useful.
As for safety. Not a primary reason for me or I wouldn't ride a bike on road but I'm assessing safety on the roads and traffic that exist not the way it would be in someone's ideal world full of small cars.
The extra running costs of a big car are well worth it for the extra capability.
The only downside is parking in tight spaces but if we are going anywhere like that we take the other small car we have.
Two kids is one too many too IMO
Two kids for each couple is enough to reduce population over time.
My point is about freedom of choice.
That's all well and good but choices have consequences. Sometimes they have negative consequences for people other than the person making the choice. How's that fair?
I have a small house, one child and have one holiday a year. Ok, I have a couple of big motors.
But you could have a small house, one child, one holiday a year and have two smaller motors, and save energy without really impacting your life in any way.
VED is far too low on all vehicles, especially leccy ones as it's based on direct emissions not full product lifecycle/impact I say crank it up as well as the price of petrol/diesel. price heavy inefficient vehicles off of the roads (he says owning a heavy, inefficient vehicle).
The cost of leccy is going to go up the more opportunities to burn hydrocarbons in our homes are reduced and the more leccy we need to generate. by the mid-late 2030s a huge number of us will be heating our homes and charging our cars at home on top of all the other devices and data centres, surely baseload requirements are going to triple...
That's why they are building new renewable energy and a new nuclear power station.
crank it up as well as the price of petrol/diesel.
I take it you're not a business owner who HAS to drive tens of thousands of miles a year
When deciding a policy edge cases just have to be ignored.
I take it you’re not a business owner who HAS to drive tens of thousands of miles a year
If I said I was would that make my opinion more valid?
Driving is still too cheap, whatever vehicle you use and for whatever reason it is environmentally damaging and the costs do not reflect that or generally get put towards addressing it.
That's the fun think about "environmentally driven policy" finding ways to accommodate the "business community" who largely want everything to carry on as it is. The seas might be lapping at the edges of the M5, but don't you dare **** with their money!
It's irrelevant anyway, all parties are terrified of upsetting businesses, no government is ever going to enact the sort of thing I suggested above you might see a penny on fuel duty once a year... Instead politicians cling to the idea that the market will save us. That the very businesses that sell us the goods and refined hydrocarbons we burn in our horseless carriages have some sort of incentive to fix the issues their products (and our willing use of them) created...
Edit:
a new nuclear power station.
Decades late, hugely over budget, new nuclear is lagging badly. Renewables are great but only part of the energy mix, we're going to need more in the coming decades and some of it it going to end up coming for burning gas...
On the other hand, I commute roughly weekly from Newcastle to Reading and back. I find it utterly contemptible that I live in a society that incentivizes me to do that by car!
How do you get around when you're in whichever place without a car - or is this a work thing, and in a hotel next door?
But you could have a small house, one child, one holiday a year and have two smaller motors, and save energy without really impacting your life in any way.
WTF has it to do with you how I/we spend our money?
In the context of this thread on cars, if you/we choose to spend our money on a large car that uses lots of energy to move, is environmentally damaging, takes up lots of space in public places, is dangerous for anyone not in such a large car, and is generally inappropriate and unnecessary in most situations, then it very much becomes other peoples business.
then it very much becomes other peoples business.
It really doesn't.
Swedish guy I worked with told me about driving as a youngster, like at 15 yo.
In Sweden they could drive a car on their own very young, as long as the suspension was fixed solid on the rear axle.
Made it hideously uncomfortable and highly dodgy to go anything more than a very very slow. On nice long flat straight roads a bit more speed was possible.
Another take on make things more dangerous to make people act safer, and vice versa.
It really doesn’t.
Why not?
VED in relation to a cars emissions seems flawed to me.
VED is just a revenue scheme for the government, and the money from it is in no way ear marked on any way for roads or transport in general.
All these proposals seem extremely regressive and will impact the poor disproportionally.
Strange as the ones calling for changes seem to be the ones who are normally trying to show they have a high level of empathy for those less well off 🙂
The problem with being woke is someone always gets the arse end of your idea. Soon people will be disappearing in a wokey paradox vortex 🙂
Why not?
I see the reasons you've given. However, you're welcome to have an opinion on what I drive - and that's all it is, an opinion. It's certainly not any of your business.
How do you get around when you’re in whichever place without a car – or is this a work thing, and in a hotel next door?
I drove the car up week 1 and leave it in the NCP.
If I was office-based I'd do as you suggested, but I work in TV production and don't really have a clue where I'll be needed within ~25miles of the city center and need the car/van to carry cameras and assorted kit arround.
I take it you’re not a business owner who HAS to drive tens of thousands of miles a year
Then you just pass on that cost to the customer. Every one of your competitors is in the same situation. And if they can figure out how to do the same work in a less polluting and cheaper way, then that's just capitalism.
I see the reasons you’ve given. However, you’re welcome to have an opinion on what I drive – and that’s all it is, an opinion. It’s certainly not any of your business.
Unfortunately, it is the rest of the world's problem, and the tax system should better reflect that.
Then you just pass on that cost to the customer.
You really think it's that easy? 🤣
I see the reasons you’ve given. However, you’re welcome to have an opinion on what I drive – and that’s all it is, an opinion. It’s certainly not any of your business.
When your choices start impacting other peoples environment, it also becomes their business.
It’s certainly not any of your business.
Aside from clearly it is. Lets just take the casual examples of carparks being placed under far greater pressure due to oversized cars or the example given of roads being blocked by people using them as personal parking spots with oversized vehicles or that peoples sightlines are blocked because someone else decides they need something bigger to help their own sightlines.
In the same way that if I ride like an idiot its other peoples business if I drive some oversized junk then it becomes their business.
You really think it’s that easy? 🤣
I mean, if it's harder for you than your competitors they could also source from then I think that just demonstrates how much of a subsidy to polluters the current system is.
I've said before that I find it daft that the current system actually pays me to pollute because I make a net profit on 45p/mile. But I have a conscience about it so I'm getting the train instead which costs more money than the diesel would if I wasn't passing it on and doesn't make me a profit. It costs me about £190 a week to do the right thing environmentally, that's bonkers!
Farm vehicles already have leeway, if you want to drive to tesco, buy a honda jazz.
As others are commenting, deliveries still need to happen. This massively increases rural costs. Even a Jazz will cost a lot if you do 12k a year just to get to supermarket and work each week, etc.
This massively increases rural costs.
So does having your crops fail.
It is muted that 'road usage' tax will be coming in the near future to compensate for the reduction in fuel tax revenue as Ev's become more common. Currently when you cross a tolled bridge for instance there are different rates for different sized vehicles, so I see no problem in implementing a proportional much higher rate for vehicles that take up more space and have a higher impact per single usage when this eventually comes in. Outsized personal vehicles need to be nudged off the road so that we all collectively do our bit to attempt to improve our excessive impact, exorbitant pricing will help to make this happen given our repeated failure to implement change on moral grounds alone. If an individual absolutely needs a big vehicle for business then there could be a way to offset the extra tax paid against the businesses yearly assessment so that small firms aren't unfairly penalised, there could also be exemptions for large scale transportation of essential goods such as food. If you need a huge vehicle for the two weeks a year you go on hollibobs then wouldn't it be better if there were decent rental options for these outlier events, dealers could even arrange that sort of thing as some sort of subscription service.
of course it does, the standing weight of a 2 tonne chelsea tractor with 20 inch rims and the aero of a small house will burn more fuel than a fiesta, especialy in stop-start traffic like the school run.
If you're only doing 30-50 miles per week - the delta in fuel is what? £12 a week? So over a year £500, but you really don't see that money as it dribbles out. A weight and efficiency based tax would be a huge disincentive and would make people really think about their choice and usage.
<1000kg = 0
1000-1250 = 100
1250-1500 = 300
1500-1750 = 500 *2 in the first 4 years
1750-2000 = 1000 *2 in the first 5 years
2000+ = 2000 *2 in the first 6 years
3l/100km or 8km/kwh = 0
4l/100km or 7km/kwh = 100
5l/100km or 6km/kwh = 200
6l/100km or 5km/kwh = 300
>7l/100km or <4km/kwh = 500
We'll soon see how many people "need" a massive car with difflocks, 4wd and the aerodynamics of a brick building whether it be an EV or DJ.
It’s certainly not any of your business.
Unfortunately, it is our business. I wish it weren't, but it is. Similarly, what I drive and consume is also everyone's business.
But it isn't mol - no more than its any of my business where you choose to go on holiday for example.
Everyone seems to think that other people's affairs are their business to get involved in these days
A weight and efficiency based tax would be a huge disincentive and would make people really think about their choice and usage.
I pay +£500pa already as my cost over £40k new - and I suspect do most folk driving these SUV's that many folk seem to hate (but not 'leisure' vans eh?).
But under an 'efficiency' rule that ought to reduce my VED pa, as my car does better than pretty much every petrol car.
Big car versus small car, its not pretty
Still stuggling to work out how they managed to flip it, Yaris didn’t seem to budge an inch!
Disco thought it was messing with an old-Lady's shopping car, but it's a GR Yaris, the Honey Badger of the automotive world.
TAFKASTR is right - it's not our business, and it shouldn't be, but I can (unfortunately) see a time coming when it will be. If people refuse to change their behaviour for societal good, then the very laws that you abhor for their restrictions on your choice and behavior, will come. They'll have to, otherwise there's no way out of this.
The pandemic proved that people will act in their own, provincial self interest unless (and sometimes irregardless of) laws are emplaced to protect others at your expense.
The exceptionalism shown during the pandemic was absolutely plain to see. "I don't have to follow the rules, because", "that rule doesn't apply to me, because", "I'm not doing that cos Dom Cum didn't follow the rules, so why should I?" These are the same exceptionalism used to justify lifestyle choice that have effects on others. Driving 2 miles to work because "there's no law against it", keeping the external floodlights of your house on all day and night, "because it looks nice". Driving a massive car because it make you feel like king dingaling and "you've got he money, so why not?".
Legitimate reasons for a big car? Fine. Legitimate reasons for foreign travel? Fine. Unfettered squandering of resources for no legitimate reason. NOT fine.
Everyone seems to think that other people’s affairs are their business to get involved in these days
Are you collecting the environmental impact of your driving in a container, then taking it home to clean it before releasing fresh air back outside? If no, then your car (and mine) are polluting the air others have to breath making it their business too
Everyone seems to think that other people’s affairs are their business to get involved in these days
It becomes other people's business when it affects them. For example if you were my neighbour I would not care one jot what music you listen to. But if you play it too loud at 2am then it becomes my business.
Everyone knows on here I drive a Discovery and that it's for work.
However to the man in the street, he may see a massive SUV just for my own personal gratification. Said man may question why I drive it.
I may choose to explain why, or I may choose to tell him it's none of his business.
At that point, it's stops being any of his business.
He can shuffle off and come to his own conclusions if he wants, but they may well be wrong
Legitimate reasons for a big car? Fine. Legitimate reasons for foreign travel? Fine
who rules on legitimacy? where on the scale of
Because I'm rich and I can > its a nice thing to do with my life > absolutely essential for me and my dependents to not die in the immediate future
does the cut off fall?
who rules on legitimacy? where on the scale of
Usually on here I think it's based on what the individual voicing their opinion does in their daily life and then they judge from that starting point
I'm sure there are some that have a small car due to circumstance, rather than a purely environmental decision, but they will use it to demonstrate how they are doing 'the right thing'
Similarly, I'd like to see the behaviour of EVERYONE on here who claims to be super eco friendly if they won the lottery.
I'm sure many WOULD live a conservative lifestyle, but if every single one claimed they wouldn't have any unnecessary extravagances, then there are some liars. Fact
ayjaydoubleyou
Free Memberwho rules on legitimacy? where on the scale of
Because I’m rich and I can > its a nice thing to do with my life > absolutely essential for me and my dependents to not die in the immediate future, does the cut off fall?
Ideally with the individual, but realistically with rules guided by committees and experts.
Similarly, I’d like to see the behaviour of EVERYONE on here who claims to be super eco friendly if they won the lottery.
I’m sure many WOULD live a conservative lifestyle, but if every single one claimed they wouldn’t have any unnecessary extravagances, then there are some liars. Fact
What's the carbon footprint of that straw man?
More to the point, what are the odds of it?
Odds of winning the lottery: 1 in 45 million
The number of forum regulars: a couple of hundred?
Odds of the winner being environmentally insensitive: ??
Odds of them lying about it beforehand: ??
Straw man?
I'm not arguing anything. I'm pointing out something that is more than likely true. Truth hurts does it?
*Edit for your edit.
Give over, you know full well it's a hypothetical scenario.
Just as I'm sure you know full well under certain circumstances, people who claim to be holier than thou would have double standards
I’m sure many WOULD live a conservative lifestyle, but if every single one claimed they wouldn’t have any unnecessary extravagances, then there are some liars.
I think you mis-understand. We're not trying to make out we're better. At least, I'm not. I'll freely admit where I waste carbon and resources, and I have admitted that in this thread. But this isn't about me vs you. The fact is that the things we all choose to do affect each other. So it is all our business. Anyone can criticise me for what I do, it's entirely valid.
I'm more playing devils advocate than me Vs anyone mol
I'm well past being judged on here 🤣🤣
I'll state a claim for the defence though when the STW massive set out the stall for what people should and shouldn't be allowed to do 😉
TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR
Full MemberUsually on here I think it’s based on what the individual voicing their opinion does in their daily life and then they judge from that starting point
Maybe that's because some are doing more than others and it sucks when you're really struggling to make a difference and some don't even try?
I’m sure there are some that have a small car due to circumstance, rather than a purely environmental decision, but they will use it to demonstrate how they are doing ‘the right thing’
Maybe, but it's still the right thing to be shouting about in the current climate.
Similarly, I’d like to see the behaviour of EVERYONE on here who claims to be super eco friendly if they won the lottery.
Which is why rules may be required as people cant be trusted to do what's in everyone's best interest, not just their own. How many celebrities were caught red handed during the pandemic trying to fly into small airports on private jets in order to have a holiday while everyone else endured?
I’m sure many WOULD live a conservative lifestyle, but if every single one claimed they wouldn’t have any unnecessary extravagances, then there are some liars. Fact
No one should have to forgo everything, that's not right, but being unwilling to sacrifice anything especially at the expense of others is criminal and should be treated as such.
I’m more playing devils advocate than me Vs anyone mol
Fair.. and I know you (may!) have a use for a large 4x4. But it's an interesting topic: what society means and what it should mean. And it comes up on here a lot, indirectly.
Maybe, but it’s still the right thing to be shouting about in the current climate.
This is a good point. One of the biggest factors influencing behaviour is what people think others will think. So if enough people shout about these things the more behaviour will change.
I’m more playing devils advocate
I think that's colloquially referred to as trolling then.
Truth hurts does it?
I mean, if behaving better than a 1 in 45 million chance hypothetical argument helps you sleep at night .....
Much as I'm not trying to start an argument and I'm not trying to single you out here TAFKASTR - but this made me laugh:
TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR
Full MemberUsually on here I think it’s based on what the individual voicing their opinion does in their daily life and then they judge from that starting point
I’m sure there are some that have a small car due to circumstance, rather than a purely environmental decision, but they will use it to demonstrate how they are doing ‘the right thing’
Preceded by this:
TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR
Full MemberI have a small house, one child and have one holiday a year. Ok, I have a couple of big motors.
My point is about freedom of choice.
How much of the first two points were driven by environmental concerns or through an attempt to balance the latter?
Crikey. This took quite an unpleasent turn didnt it.
Back to the OQ.
Its tricky for me because i do in theorey think their should be. You see it outside nursery and school every day. Massive cars, in inappropriate situations, struggling to maneuver in spaces you could land a jumbo jet in. Jesticulating and effing and jeffing at each other because they want to drop wee Jimothy off AT the school gate, not 50m from it.
Having SAID that.
My only transport is a 6.5m Long, 2.4m wide, < 30mpg Van.
It does 2000 miles a year tops, and NEVER into town or school.
We ride our bikes everywhere. The van only really goes out on holiday, to pick up timber, or up country to see family 200miles away. (I havent tried Public transport with a 5 yr old and an 18month old and all their crap and my crap for 10 days away yet)
So can i not have my Van?
So can i not have my Van?
Some here would rather you didn't. While we are at it can we ban pets, foreign holidays, more than 2 children, and eating meat? It's the planet.
I’m not arguing anything. I’m pointing out something that is more than likely true. Truth hurts does it?
Truth?
Nobody has claimed to be paragons of virtue have they, I think I said my car is too big and inefficient. But I think some of us have simply accepted the need for changes and are happy to engage in discussion about what could be done, and what the practical implications might be, including some inevitable inequalities...
Railing against anyone who simply discusses changing from the current Status-Quo, labelling them as "Woke" (as if that's an insult) and unrealistic isn't really constructive is it? I assume you do this because you have a big throbber for cars?
But some people seem quite offended by the mere idea of fewer cars on the roads or making it more costly to run one. But TBH I can mostly see benefits; for society, for people's physical and mental health, for the environment and even for those who continue to own cars as there would be less traffic to contend with...
Of course just making car ownership/operation more expensive on it's own is pointless, you have to do beneficial things with any revenue derived. As it is we charge an amount of VED that is supposedly linked to the environmental damage the car does (but nowhere near proportionate) and just throw it in the general taxation pot to fund more roads/hospitals/Faulty PPE procurement from Goves mates, etc...
If you do end up squeezing more money out of a diminishing number of car owners, it has to be ring-fenced and put towards public transport, cycle and walking infrastructure and environmentally beneficial projects...
So can i not have my Van?
Do you need a van?
Do you need a van?
Only if the train isn't running from Warrington to Glasgow.
+1 for bigger cars being much better, at least for me
Far more comfy and can carry more stuff. I don’t need to drive round the city, so parking isn’t an issue. And whilst they may be more expensive to run and leave a slightly higher carbon footprint, I’ve offset that by buying second hand and only driving a few thousand miles a year. They are safer too, although that didn’t factor into the equation when I bought one
No way would I be driving something g like a fiesta or a Toyota aygo. Hateful little things
They are safer too
No, they're not.
And for me, bigger car = Passat sized, that's a reasonable big size. I don't think many people need more than a Passat or Mondeo estate, and there's not a lot of fuel economy penalty on those.
No, they’re not.
They are. Crash safety ratings are relative to size. A 5 star small car is not as safe as a 5 star big car.
Two bigger cars crashing together is less safe than 2 small cars - more energy.
I’m sure I read that larger vehicles are more likely to have single car crashes, roll overs and slide and spin into tree/ post type crashes. Also they cause more damage to smaller cars due to increased mass and ride up over them causing further injury and death.
I think that report summed up they are safer in 2% of UK crashes.
So we will end up in an arms race unless limits are set. Given the need to be sustainable I’m surprised there is much resistance.
How much of the first two points were driven by environmental concerns or through an attempt to balance the latter?
Haha, none at all and I wouldn't claim that they were - it's purely co-incidental that my house isn't big and I have one child. I don't even feel the need to justify having a big car - although there could be an argument that my family has a smaller overall carbon footprint than many others that may have a small car? On the flip side, I couldn't give two hoots how big someone's pad is, or if they have 6 kids - freedom of choice.
Nobody has claimed to be paragons of virtue have they, I think I said my car is too big and inefficient. But I think some of us have simply accepted the need for changes and are happy to engage in discussion about what could be done, and what the practical implications might be, including some inevitable inequalities…
Railing against anyone who simply discusses changing from the current Status-Quo, labelling them as “Woke” (as if that’s an insult) and unrealistic isn’t really constructive is it? I assume you do this because you have a big throbber for cars?
But some people seem quite offended by the mere idea of fewer cars on the roads or making it more costly to run one.
I'm not sure about your first comment - some come across on here as though they are. Anyway, my intervention into this thread came about from the suggestion of banning SUV's and the suggestion of telling people what they could and couldn't drive.
I don't recall calling anyone woke, but happy to stand corrected. Yeah, I love cars - that said, I'd possibly have an Audi RS-GT e-tron. If I had a spare £90k
Fewer cars on the road doesn't offend me, the roads are overcrowded. Educating people is fine and encouraging them to use cars less, great - not being told you can't have a SUV just because you don't necessarily need one though.
Making it more costly to run isn't going to massively effect Tracey doing the school run in her range Rover though, is it? 1) she probably only does 100 miles a week 2) she can probably well afford it
Ignoring the comments about just passing it on to your customers - it massively affects people who need to do miles for business. Most people don't do big miles and consume lots of fuel for fun. The UK fuel duty is already huge anyway if you hadn't noticed
It's OK chaps after months possibly years of haranguing by you lot, I've sold my SUV this week and bought an estate car again 😉
Premier Icon
irc
Free MemberNo, they’re not.
They are. Crash safety ratings are relative to size. A 5 star small car is not as safe as a 5 star big car.
That’s not at all what that article states, nor is it in any way the truth. The “article” states that in a collision between a small car and a large car, that a small car comes off worst. What it does is reinforce the original point that some cars are just too big and too dangerous to everyone else to be allowed on the road. Crash tests are done against the same objects at the same speeds for all cars. A5* rating is a 5* rating. It doesn’t in any way relate to vehicle size except that (and as stated above) a larger vehicle has more energy and thus must absorb more damage for a given speed. Thus in a collision between vehicles of differing size and not an immutable object, they do perform better.
But if they didn’t exist at all, we’d all be safer and better off.
Ignoring the comments about just passing it on to your customers – it massively affects people who need to do miles for business. Most people don’t do big miles and consume lots of fuel for fun.
It wasn't my comment (in the same way it was bazzer labelling people as "woke" a page back) but the point stands, if it's a legitimate business cost, it will be passed on to customers and bourn where those business miles are justified, I don't see how that's a contentious statement that is how the world already works. Plus are you totally sure some of those "business miles" aren't done at least partly for fun?
Personally I'd be fine with a fewer sales reps on the motorways, but I accept heating technicians and joiners probably can't do their jobs so well via zoom...
The UK fuel duty is already huge anyway if you hadn’t noticed
You mean that "Fuel duty escalator" that's not moved for about a decade? Inflation is what drives fuel prices currently, along with everything else...
Honestly I'd be OK with being priced out of doing so many personal and commuting miles by car, so long as the revenue was put towards improving public transport and subsidising renewables... Like that would happen.
In reference to the original question though, yeah I agree we should not ban particular vehicles, we should just make the choice simpler by making costs truly correlate to impacts...
Chip shortages and short term car price hikes aside I think a looming downturn, flattened wage growth Vs more cost of living inflation and home energy hikes plus the 2030 end to ICE sales are going to combine and prompt people to reappraise their vehicle choices based on plain old financial prudence.
Anyone still considering a new V8 when we hit 2025 should probably be considered a lunatic or too rich for their own good...
Well I haven't bothered to red the whole thread. I assume the usual petrolheads making excuses for why they need a huge car?
If car drivers paid the true costs of their car ownership we would see many more small and economical vehicles.
Take parking? On street parking is public land monopolized by a few. That land is worth good money in towns and cities. Lets see the car drivers paying properly for parking
Lets see them pay properly for all the pollution caused
lest see them pay for all the illhealth and death caused
Damage to roads is as the square of the weight so lets seem them taxed on size and weight
An all those complaining that they have to drive all these miles - thats a business cost - pass it on.. yes it will make you more expensive - thats better than being subsidized by my taxes to pollute without penalty. Make the polluter pay
At the moment we run a huge subsidy from the public coffers to fund private motoring. Costs to the country from motoring - the cost raised from motoring taxes show that there remain huge costs paid for from general taxation
Crazy that as we teeter on the edge of a cost of living crisis, you want to push the price of basic goods up by increasing transport costs.
Plus are you totally sure some of those “business miles” aren’t done at least partly for fun?
I try not to worry about fuel costs for my fun miles, it's futile @ 11mpg
Here's, 16 cylinders, 8.4 litres of displacement and 900bhp of fun..... 🙂
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49123443658_0121a81dd1_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49123443658_0121a81dd1_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://www.flickr.com/gp/85252658@N05/QaNin3 ]2019-11-25_08-28-04[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr
Thus in a collision between vehicles of differing size and not an immutable object, they do perform better.
You made my point for me more clearly than I did. Thanks. Many, if not most crashes involve vehicle v vehicle impacts not imutable objects. Where bigger cars are safer.
So much so that NCAP are tweaking their rating system.
"The changes have come about because of concerns that SUVs and larger, heavier cars cause small cars and their occupants to “fare less well” in real-world collisions."
"Historically SUVs and other big cars have offered very good protection to their occupants. However, the smaller vehicles they sometimes crash into can fare less well.!
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/352321/euro-ncap-crash-tests-undergo-biggest-change-decade
On street parking is public land monopolized by a few.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. Our street was built at the same time as the houses so the cost of providing the street parking was paid by the owners. The owners use the street they paid for (and the adjacent car parks) for parking. I fail to see the problem.
Many, if not most crashes involve vehicle v vehicle impacts not imutable objects. Where bigger cars are safer.
Which isnt really a plus since it is externalising costs onto others and also risks a red queen race scenario where to feel safe we will end up with everyone in US sized suvs.
Perhaps owners of smaller cars should be given the option of a remote weapons station to even the odds.
freedom of choice.
Your freedom of choice has limits, that's what you don't appear to realise. Necessarily so, because we live in a society.
Yeah, I love cars – that said, I’d possibly have an Audi RS-GT e-tron. If I had a spare £90k
I love cars too. But I would never drive a huge polluting thing. I'm feeling very guilty about the Merc which is a 2.1L and only does at most 50mpg. I'd dearly love a 3.0 V6 one, I daydream about what it would be like to drive, and going by Autotrader prices I could sell mine and get one for basically no cost, but I won't because it's even worse on fuel.
I love cars too. But I would never drive a huge polluting thing
The e-tron is an EV
My current Audi above doesn't do many miles at all and if I wasn't driving it, someone else would. Now that's a strawman argument 🤣
The Disco, if I try....
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51859482038_f4a83e6162_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51859482038_f4a83e6162_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://www.flickr.com/gp/85252658@N05/nM7f7b ]2022-02-03_09-10-02[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr
Not too bad for a 2.5t 300bhp 3litre brick
That said, in not trying to justify anything. I don't drive particularly environmentally friendly vehicles, it's a choice I've made - for now. No doubt that may change in the future
The e-tron is an EV
Maybe an eV but its still too big & unnecessary, which has environmental costs.
Maybe an eV but its still too big & unnecessary, which has environmental costs.
That maybe so to a certain degree, but they are now making cars that could tempt your typical corporate director out of his huge fuel burner and you're still not happy.
The problem with very large SUVs, EVs and very large luxury cars is that the general public actual pay to subsidise their use. Despite the fact that they do substantially more damage, use more resources to build and consume more energy in use, the cost of car tax, fuel duty, VAT is essentially the same. We tax high rate earners more, as it's seen as a fair response to increased wealth, should we not also tax high rate users more? Some of that is covered in fuel duty, but it still doesn't cover size/weight/resource...perhaps it should?
The cost of my car tax (2004 BMW 330i Touring) is over £350 and I only do 1500 miles per year. I spend more on tax than I do on fuel. My car isn't particularly big, heavy or thirsty.
What it does is reinforce the original point that some cars are just too big and too dangerous to everyone else to be allowed on the road.
Be interested in your views of vans, buses and lorries on the roads...
And for me, bigger car = Passat sized, that’s a reasonable big size. I don’t think many people need more than a Passat or Mondeo estate, and there’s not a lot of fuel economy penalty on those.
Man picks what he drives and decides its the answer...
Be interested in your views of vans, buses and lorries on the roads…
...well for starters, they tend to be driven by professional drivers with a special license and specific safety training relative to the dangers of a massive vehicle, and are doing a task that necessitates their size. Meanwhile any old lowly skilled myopic limited attention spanned average uk crap driver can jump in a 2.5 tonne needless vanity death box and punt it down the road at breakneck speed...doesn't make much sense.
@molgrips - IIRC, there's a correlation between SUVs and rollover events. That's probably down to the physics of having a high centre of gravity.
On the topic of car size, many of the lanes near me were formally fine for traffic going in both directions, now can barely sit two SUVs side by side to allow oncoming traffic to pass. It's getting ridiculous with modern SUVs approaching WW2 tank size.
For example, walking down my road this morning at school run time, a car almost hit my arm with its wing mirror because the road is barely wide enough.
Despite the fact that they do substantially more damage, use more resources to build and consume more energy in use, the cost of car tax, fuel duty, VAT is essentially the same. We tax high rate earners more, as it’s seen as a fair response to increased wealth, should we not also tax high rate users more? Some of that is covered in fuel duty, but it still doesn’t cover size/weight/resource…perhaps it should?
We VED on emissions which roughly corresponds to a mishmash of engine size and power. Its not perfect but it does seem to roughly correlate with show-off cars paying more. e.g an economical low tuned cruiser pays less than a turboed up high revving hot hatch.
There is a bonus VED on new/nearly new cars over a certain value, which covers the "tax the rich more".
VAT on a new purchase is proportional to value
Fuel duty covers the equation of miles driven * efficiency fairly freely. Efficiency is going to be at least vaguely proportional to size and weight.
It may be interesting to note that the zEV sales percentage mandate from 2024 is likely to mean that manufacturers begin to drop small cars from their UK lineup.
At least then tafkastr wouldn't have to spend their time justifying decisions they clearly feel very self conscious about to the internet
We VED on emissions which roughly corresponds to a mishmash of engine size and power. Its not perfect but it does seem to roughly correlate with show-off cars paying more. e.g an economical low tuned cruiser pays less than a turboed up high revving hot hatch.
There is a bonus VED on new/nearly new cars over a certain value, which covers the “tax the rich more”.
VAT on a new purchase is proportional to value
Fuel duty covers the equation of miles driven * efficiency fairly freely. Efficiency is going to be at least vaguely proportional to size and weight.
A Range Rover SVR puts out (a claimed) 333g/km of C02 and pays £600 VED. A BMW 540i (181g/kg) with similar performance and more carrying capability pays £500 VED despite producing almost half as much CO2. The SVR weighs almost 500kg (half a tonne, or 7 full sized adults!) more. £100!
As I said earlier, a slight monthly increase in fuel cost isn't noticed by the people that buy these things, but at annual TAX should be so extortionate that they really have to think twice about buying one.
A recent Transport Select Committee report came to the conclusion that the coming switch to EV's will result in a £35 Billion reduction in revenue's taken from fuel duty and current VED's. It's such a major contributor to the tax take that its highly likely an overhaul of the system is on its way sooner rather then later. Pay-per-mile road pricing seems the most likely and it could well be 'sizeist' ... "The committee called for the system to be “dynamic” meaning that charges could vary depending on the time of day, the area in which people are driving and the type of vehicle being driven with the aim of modifying the future behaviour of drivers."
…well for starters, they tend to be driven by professional drivers with a special license and specific safety training relative to the dangers of a massive vehicle, and are doing a task that necessitates their size. Meanwhile any old lowly skilled myopic limited attention spanned average uk crap driver can jump in a 2.5 tonne needless vanity death box and punt it down the road at breakneck speed…doesn’t make much sense.
Professional Drivers? FFS what planet are you on, HGV's maybe but anything below that and it's your average Joe Public. And folk such as I can drive pretty much anything up to 7.5 tonne on a car licence.
That depends what year you passed the test though doesn't it...might be wrong but doesn't over 3.5 tonne require additional training post '97 test date. The heaviest EV SUV's are nudging 3 tonnes now so its not such an otherworldly point.
