Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Steph on 04 October, 2019, 07:42:32 am
-
Placed here deliberately, as a useful response to the shout of the thread title has up until now "Neither does Wowbagger!"
(Sorry, mate!)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/04/electric-cars-call-for-tax-on-road-usage-to-cover-lost-fuel-revenue?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVS19XZWVrZGF5cy0xOTEwMDQ%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&CMP=GTUK_email
-
This is the telling bit of that article:
The IFS said decisions by both Labour and Conservative governments not to raise fuel duty in line with inflation meant that duties had fallen from 2.2% to 1.3% of national income since peaking in 1999-2000, costing £19bn a year in lost revenue. It added that the government would lose a further £1bn a year if rumours of a 2p a litre cut in fuel duty in the budget proved to be true.
War on the motorist, my arse!
-
Flat rate per mile, bollocks. Make it a tax by weight of vehicle. No charge for anything under 50 kg.
-
Flat rate per mile, bollocks. Make it a tax by weight of vehicle. No charge for anything under 50 kg.
Rising proportionally to the damage done to the road, so that would be axle weight to the 4th power IIRC
-
Flat rate per mile, bollocks. Make it a tax by weight of vehicle. No charge for anything under 50 kg.
That'll mean I have to pay double just to walk down the street
-
Flat rate per mile, bollocks. Make it a tax by weight of vehicle. No charge for anything under 50 kg.
Rising proportionally to the damage done to the road, so that would be axle weight to the 4th power IIRC
isn't that already the case with HGVs? Not to 4th power perhaps, but reflective of the additional damage.
This is generally the argument I use with the "get orf moi road" brigade.
As far as I'm concerned fuel duty is the way to go, taxes the direct pollution impact, not a general taxation on the rest of us to allow people to pollute on our behalf. If the haulage sector wants to get serious about this, then the cost needs to be passed on to the price of goods, hence hitting the consumer in the wallet at the end of the supply chain, and eventually resulting in downward pressure to get more efficient.
I'm happy to pay higher fuel duty, I'd also be happy to pay a suitable amount of VAT or other eco-tax on every flight I take, then I'm directly responsble for my decision making rather than some amorphous blob of general taxation
-
Germany has just announced it is going to spend 50bn euros on its railway network to ameriolate climate change. The Tories at their conference have announced plans to spend a further £25billion on its road network.
-
As far as I'm concerned fuel duty is the way to go, taxes the direct pollution impact, not a general taxation on the rest of us to allow people to pollute on our behalf.
There's a rapidly expanding elephant in the room when it comes to fuel duty: How do you ensure sufficient tax revenue as more vehicles run on electricity?
-
As far as I'm concerned fuel duty is the way to go, taxes the direct pollution impact, not a general taxation on the rest of us to allow people to pollute on our behalf.
There's a rapidly expanding elephant in the room when it comes to fuel duty: How do you ensure sufficient tax revenue as more vehicles run on electricity?
Not really an issue in the next ten years or so is it though. Even Norway where twenty percent of new cars are electric will have a long way to go before had the fleet are
I’m sure the next bunch of loonies in charge of the asylum will find another tax that suits their needs
-
It's not about raising government revenue, though. It's about finding a new way to make motor vehicles pay their costs.
-
The only effective way is to introduce road pricing, but I can't see any political party grasping that nettle.
Difficult to tax electricity used for vehicles, unless they can find a way to dye electrons red. ;)
-
As logical, rational individuals here, we know the system needs altering. However, in the same way that successive Labour & Tory Governments have postponed for decades any rebasing of property prices for council tax, they're not going to alter the way cars are taxed through VED for a very long time. It's all part of the usual short term pandering to the "hard working British taxpayer/car owner", to keep their votes.
-
As logical, rational individuals here, we know the system needs altering. However, in the same way that successive Labour & Tory Governments have postponed for decades any rebasing of property prices for council tax, they're not going to alter the way cars are taxed through VED for a very long time. It's all part of the usual short term pandering to the "hard working British taxpayer/car owner", to keep their votes.
Time for a benign dictatorship. The bulk of the population are unlikely to vote for changes which they perceive will make their life harder / more expensive.
And they certainly won't do that with FPTP.
-
As logical, rational individuals here, we know the system needs altering. However, in the same way that successive Labour & Tory Governments have postponed for decades any rebasing of property prices for council tax, they're not going to alter the way cars are taxed through VED for a very long time. It's all part of the usual short term pandering to the "hard working British taxpayer/car owner", to keep their votes.
Time for a benign dictatorship. The bulk of the population are unlikely to vote for changes which they perceive will make their life harder / more expensive.
And they certainly won't do that with FPTP.
although he evidence would suggest that they are perfectly happy to vote for damaging change if they are told it’ll be worth it in the short term by some Etonian twat.
-
But they don't perceive there will be damage.
I spoke with someone the other day who likened the whole Brexit crap show as being akin to religion. They have faith. They believe.
-
But they don't perceive there will be damage.
I spoke with someone the other day who likened the whole Brexit crap show as being akin to religion. They have faith. They believe.
It is widely regarded as a cult in the murky corners of Farcebok I frequent.
-
Right.
Personally I'd like to see Vehicle Excise Duty abolished.
Rationale: If it doesn't exist, fuckwits can't shout "BUT YOU DON'T PAY ROAD TAX!" at cyclists.
Given the significant proportion of vehicles that don't pay VED as it's based on emissions, I'd say it's no longer fit for purpose. Get rid of VED, stick 3p pre litre on diesel and 2p a litre on petrol. I'd also stick a levy on tyres. (it's the only emissions that EV's produce from the vehicle other than brake pads).
The idea being that there is no direct tax on the ownership of the vehicle, but on the running of it. Got a car that sits in the garage and you only drive it on the one day of Summer, then you pay a lot less than the person who has a 3l engined wank panzer that they drive around in all day.
Getting the political will to support it. Nah, the country is much more interested in national suicide.
*sigh*
J
-
Personally I'd like to see Vehicle Excise Duty abolished.
Rationale: If it doesn't exist, fuckwits can't shout "BUT YOU DON'T PAY ROAD TAX!" at cyclists.
This is a pretty compelling argument.
-
Just change it to a tax on on-street parking.
-
Just change it to a tax on on-street parking.
Why stop at on-street?
https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/information-for-residents/transport-parking-and-streets/parking-and-permits/workplace-parking-levy
-
If fuel duty had risen in line with inflation over the past decade or so (never mind the 'fuel duty escalator'), we'd have had far more than 3p and 2p a litre by now. So, yes, do that and more.
You then begin to face two problems connected with fuel prices. One is that when the price of one fuel is far higher than another which is compatible or nearly so but intended for a different purpose, people will start to use the cheaper one for other purposes. The obvious example is red diesel, but that's fairly easily prevented by restricting supplies and users of untaxed fuel. The bigger problem is what happened in much of Eastern Europe in the early 2000s, when people start running lorries and buses on fuel which is sold as domestic heating oil. This not only loses government revenue, it increases pollution because the fuel is not optimised for internal combustion engines. So you either increase enforcement, which is difficult even if you do have the transport police and customs officers, or you increase the non-transport fuel taxes to match – which is probably fair enough as they are the same thing and therefore have the same pollution costs.
The second problem is that by focusing on taxing use rather than ownership, you no longer give light users an incentive to give up. A car that's parked 364 days a year still imposes costs on society, most obviously by land take and street congestion. If it's parked on private land it might not cause congestion but is at the very least an eyesore (if it's a rusting hulk in the front garden, which most unused vehicles are) and if it's in good condition, then it's arguably an unused resource that could be made better use of. The big hit of paying VED (whatever you want to call it) once a year can have more psychological impact than the ongoing smaller costs of running the vehicle. So you need a way to tax ownership, whether it's the current VED system or by vehicle area, weight, maybe an annual 'number plate fee', or some other idea.
-
Why stop at on-street?
https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/information-for-residents/transport-parking-and-streets/parking-and-permits/workplace-parking-levy
Well there's likely to be a change in taxation on this soon. One of the arguments a lot of people who use EV's have used is "I can charge it at work" either using officially installed charging infrastructure, or a 13A cable through the window to their parking spot. This makes can effectively make commuting free[1]. Where this becomes even more interesting is once V2G kicks off, if you have a big enough battery, and a short enough commute, you can drive to work, plug in, drive home, plug your house into the car, cook dinner, run the tv etc... off your car, drive back to work the next day, plug in. Your employer effectively is covering your electricity bill. I did actually do the maths on how big a battery would I need to run my flat for 24 hours, and could I fit it on my bike, and take advantage of the e-bike charging at the office (spoiler, not cost effective at current battery power density).
Gemeente Amsterdam has taken a policy of getting rid of about 10000 public parking spaces.
They are replacing them with parking space for bikes and brommers ala:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGReuEmXkAAKW0b?format=jpg&name=large)
They have the same form factor as a car space, and they can move them in. At very short notice (great for festivals...). The idea is that they stick one in a location, if it works, then they replace it with a permanent installation, then move the temp one to somewhere else, rinse and repeat.
This is great, if you're riding an omafiets, but if you want to park something with a different form factor *cough* velomobile *cough*, you're screwed. I'd like to see a bike hanger type setup as a option (see my thread in the Dark Side section on how to store a velomobile). But Amsterdam has some of the most talented bike thieves on the planet (hotly contested with NYC), meaning any install would have to be rather substantial.
And ultimately, a lot of the arguments on why you shouldn't be allowed to discard abandon park your car on the public street could also be used to apply to bikes (and is why dockless bike schemes didn't fly in Amsterdam, that and racism, and a fuck it lets blame shit on tourists approach).
Under Dutch tax law a employer can pay your commute, at a fixed rate of €0.19 per km, or the actual price if you take public transport. Thing is, they define vehicle to include bike, brommer, motorbike, or car. This is obviously below the real cost per km for most cars, but for a bike it's actually pretty damn good. Cycle 10km each way to work, you're getting an extra €19 per week, tax free. Funnily enough the higher spec swapfiets bike is €19 per month... Annoyingly the way it's supposed to be calculated is the shortest reasonable route (i.e. the route you might want to actually take, not the route googlemaps says you *CAN* take), not the actual distance you do ride. Apparently my 100km ride home from work was considered "taking the piss"... Can't think why...
Back to the 2 ton death cages. I can see in the next few years the rise of Yet Another Scrapage Scheme, as the government tries to get the worst polluting vehicles off the road, as well as try to stimulate a car manufacturing sector that will be well and truly fucked by certain events... What I'd love to see tho is that rather than a car for a car policy, there is also an option of a car for bikes scheme. You trade in your old car, and swap it for a e-assist bakfiets, 2 stadfiets/hybrids, and as many kids bikes as you have in your family. Complete with all the locks etc... needed to make it practical. But somehow, I don't see any Government doing such a thing, assuming the UK government even exists in a years time...
Anyway, I'm waffling. Get rid of VED.
J
[1] A lot of Amsterdam data centres have EV charging points outside I've yet to work out which side of the generators/UPS they are connected, could be an interesting place to charge one's EV in the result of big power cuts. Or maybe it's an extra battery source via V2G...
-
This is great, if you're riding an omafiets, but if you want to park something with a different form factor *cough* velomobile *cough*, you're screwed. I'd like to see a bike hanger type setup as a option (see my thread in the Dark Side section on how to store a velomobile).
A few (very few) bike hangars have been installed on roads here but they all have standard sheffield-type racks inside. Not boxbike-friendly let alone velomobile.
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
Why doesn't insurance do this?
Why doesn't the MOT do this?
J
-
Road tax (yeah, I’m calling it that) is paid by monthly direct debit which can make it easy to ignore.
Insurance is usually way more than road tax and is usuriously expensive to pay monthly, so should have more of an effect*.
MOTs vary between pocket change and “HOW MUCH?” depending on whether they view you as an easy mark find anything wrong.
* tbh One of the most annoying bits of car ownership is dicking about with insurance quotes every year.
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
Why doesn't insurance do this?
Why doesn't the MOT do this?
J
Insurance is not related to effect on community/environment/infrastructure.
It depends on age/sex/occupation/number of years having done nothing bad/Postcode.
So, no, Insurance won't do that.
Neither will an MOT, since it costs less than a tank of fuel.
-
Just change it to a tax on on-street parking.
Have a nice big house with a nice big driveway or a nice big garage and you don't pay a sou for your six litre Bentley, the three tonne Q7 (for the school run, obv) and the au-pair's runabout but if you have the temerity to be less well-off, living in a terrace and running a fifteen year old econobox you have to cough up? Sounds fair, comrade.
-
It depends on age/sex/occupation/number of years having done nothing bad/Postcode.
No, it depends on number of years having insured a car, which is somewhere on the bad side of neutral. Give up your car ownership and rely on occasional borrowed/hired vehicles, and you lose out. The no-claims discount system encourages frivolous car use.
-
Where this becomes even more interesting is once V2G kicks off, if you have a big enough battery, and a short enough commute, you can drive to work, plug in, drive home, plug your house into the car, cook dinner, run the tv etc... off your car, drive back to work the next day, plug in. Your employer effectively is covering your electricity bill.
Only if the employer provides the charging for nothing. Mine doesn't, users have to pay using a Polar card. The restriction is that only cards we supply can be used, other Polar card holders can't - we are on an industrial estate of 20+ businesses with a common car parking area, albeit designated by company.
-
It depends on age/sex/occupation/number of years having done nothing bad/Postcode.
No, it depends on number of years having insured a car, which is somewhere on the bad side of neutral. Give up your car ownership and rely on occasional borrowed/hired vehicles, and you lose out. The no-claims discount system encourages frivolous car use.
It depends on whether you have done bad things too.
-
It depends on age/sex/occupation/number of years having done nothing bad/Postcode.
No, it depends on number of years having insured a car, which is somewhere on the bad side of neutral. Give up your car ownership and rely on occasional borrowed/hired vehicles, and you lose out. The no-claims discount system encourages frivolous car use.
It also encourages use of larger vehicles, since NCD can be transferred from n years of motorcycling to insuring a car but not the other way round.
Someone, presumably one of our Leftponders, was saying on this forum that in USA car insurance includes an 'any driver' clause as standard. So if for instance Wowbagger gives a load of Yacfards a lift to the pub, he can proceed to merrily tipple knowing that one of the teetotallers can drive everyone home.
-
Indeed, in the US you insure the car, since the scenario that someone may have to drive it is common. That said, the insurance tends to recognise risk in similar ways, so more expensive for younger drivers, etc.
The only thing that made us get rid of a car was the awkwardness of parking when we lived in Shepherd's Bush, it just wasn't worth the hassle to end up parking three streets away after fifteen minutes circling the area. And it did raise the question, why the hell do so many people in zone 2 need a car. Owners seem to accept costs, which is I assume why they sit there with the engine running.
Ultimately, if you want to discourage car use, you have to make it less convenient (while at the same time making the alternatives more convenient). Taxation may address some of that, but of course, the burden falls disproportionately.
Possibly the ultimate problem is that we've spent a lot of time and effort in building a society where we have to drive everywhere, often without an alternative. That's something we have actively encouraged in numerous ways but which we don't benefit from.
-
It's a lot easier to make a decision here to walk or cycle than it is in other countries especially nouveau riche cities such as the far and middle east. For one thing it's either too hot or too wet or both. In many cities there are very few decent footpaths and certainly no cycle provision. Across China and India where the bicycle has been king for over 100 years it is being wiped out in the new world of high rise buildings and if you don't travel everywhere by car you are clearly too poor to be of interest so why would provision be made?
-
Insurance is not related to effect on community/environment/infrastructure.
It depends on age/sex/occupation/number of years having done nothing bad/Postcode.
So, no, Insurance won't do that.
Neither will an MOT, since it costs less than a tank of fuel.
No, UK insurance does that. In the civilised world you insure the car, not the driver. This also means that anyone can drive a car with the permission of the owner. This is very useful on trips where the owner of the car becomes unwell etc...
J
-
... and does what ian talks about above, encourages reliance on private transport.
-
A few posters have referred to the annual shock of VED & insurance as a disincentive - unfortunately both DVLA & the insurers seek to mitigate that by allowing monthly payments, so it becomes ' just another bill'.
VED doesn't work in its current form - but I'm buggered if I can think of a good alternative.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Where this becomes even more interesting is once V2G kicks off, if you have a big enough battery, and a short enough commute, you can drive to work, plug in, drive home, plug your house into the car, cook dinner, run the tv etc... off your car, drive back to work the next day, plug in. Your employer effectively is covering your electricity bill.
Only if the employer provides the charging for nothing. Mine doesn't, users have to pay using a Polar card. The restriction is that only cards we supply can be used, other Polar card holders can't - we are on an industrial estate of 20+ businesses with a common car parking area, albeit designated by company.
There's a significant BIK liability if the employer gives away free electricity to any employee who wants to charge their car. Not sure how the taxman calculates it all, but it's just another headache for businesses to think about.
The business park I work on used to have free charging but is now Polar paid for charging - it's amazing how much easier it is to find an available charger now!
-
Remember there is an environmental levy on eletrickery, and although there may be no tail pipe emissions, unless you're on a renewable tariff, there are emissions somewhere. So whilst EVs don't pay VED, they do pay consumption based taxes instead, which seems not unfair to me.
I think on my insurance I can drive any car with the permission of the owner, but only third party cover.
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
£30 p.a. for my car. Hardly a significant cost, compared to servicing or insurance. Anyone paying significantly more has chosen to drive an inefficient vehicle.
-
Just change it to a tax on on-street parking.
Have a nice big house with a nice big driveway or a nice big garage and you don't pay a sou for your six litre Bentley, the three tonne Q7 (for the school run, obv) and the au-pair's runabout but if you have the temerity to be less well-off, living in a terrace and running a fifteen year old econobox you have to cough up? Sounds fair, comrade.
So publicly owned space should be annexed by car drivers for no cost? What else are we allowed to store on the public highway? Garden table? Shed? Bike locker? No, just cars.
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
£30 p.a. for my car. Hardly a significant cost, compared to servicing or insurance. Anyone paying significantly more has chosen to drive an inefficient vehicle.
If it had risen in line with inflation since the year I was old enough to drive, it would be £290 (according to the Bank of England inflation calculator). Why have we let it become so crazily cheap?
-
VED is out of kilter for motorcycles - my 180cc scooter - just paid £43 for the year. Heaven alone knows what a proper m/c costs these days.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Why have we let it become so crazily cheap?
Cumulative discounts for lower-emissions vehicles, maybe?
-
It was a rhetorical question. Yes, I think that's the process. But not necessarily the reason.
-
The reason is of course that anything else would be war on the motorist.
-
The votorisation of Britain.
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
Faced with the choice I would opt for higher fuel tax to reduce usage and accept that people have a car but use it less. Then, hopefully, ten years down the line they will catch on to how much they have lost in buying a car. But even if that doesn't happen they will have driven their car less, which is #1 aim.
Yes, I also need to be allowed to store my shed on the road, but that's #3 or #4 on the list.
-
Back to the 2 ton death cages. I can see in the next few years the rise of Yet Another Scrapage Scheme, as the government tries to get the worst polluting vehicles off the road, as well as try to stimulate a car manufacturing sector that will be well and truly fucked by certain events...
I suppose someone in the Department for Transport has given you an exclusive scoop? :-)
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
£30 p.a. for my car. Hardly a significant cost, compared to servicing or insurance. Anyone paying significantly more has chosen to drive an inefficient vehicle.
One take, but tell me, how would your choice fare, driving four people and luggage on holiday? Carrying 700kg of stone? etc etc.
We have two cars, my wife's £25 VED p.a. petrol fuelled is the local runaround, ten years old and averages less than 3000 miles a year. My diesel grandpawagon is as big as it gets for load carrying, relatively tardis like as it is smaller on the outside yet of larger internal capacity than the competition (yeah, I know it is still big). Used overwhelmingly for long trips and load carrying capability, average around 8k miles pa. It is currently averaging the same sort of consumption as the small petrol and it is capable of genuine mid-to-high 60's mpg consumption on an economy run. So, actually very efficient for its size and reasonably efficient in absolute terms. My VED? Currently £500 pa.
-
Back to the 2 ton death cages. I can see in the next few years the rise of Yet Another Scrapage Scheme, as the government tries to get the worst polluting vehicles off the road, as well as try to stimulate a car manufacturing sector that will be well and truly fucked by certain events...
I suppose someone in the Department for Transport has given you an exclusive scoop? :-)
More scrappage schemes seem a fairly safe prediction, for a number of reasons. No scoop needed.
-
Just change it to a tax on on-street parking.
Have a nice big house with a nice big driveway or a nice big garage and you don't pay a sou for your six litre Bentley, the three tonne Q7 (for the school run, obv) and the au-pair's runabout but if you have the temerity to be less well-off, living in a terrace and running a fifteen year old econobox you have to cough up? Sounds fair, comrade.
So publicly owned space should be annexed by car drivers for no cost? What else are we allowed to store on the public highway? Garden table? Shed? Bike locker? No, just cars.
Maybe the local council should charge for it as they do in large swathes of major cities.
I have to pay £165 a year to park my car on the road.
(I'd agree that on-street parking has gotten out of hand, the answer is decreased car ownership as without that the existing cars have to go somewhere.)
-
Back to the 2 ton death cages. I can see in the next few years the rise of Yet Another Scrapage Scheme, as the government tries to get the worst polluting vehicles off the road, as well as try to stimulate a car manufacturing sector that will be well and truly fucked by certain events...
I suppose someone in the Department for Transport has given you an exclusive scoop? :-)
More scrappage schemes seem a fairly safe prediction, for a number of reasons. No scoop needed.
Remind us of those number of reasons.
-
Back to the 2 ton death cages. I can see in the next few years the rise of Yet Another Scrapage Scheme, as the government tries to get the worst polluting vehicles off the road, as well as try to stimulate a car manufacturing sector that will be well and truly fucked by certain events...
I suppose someone in the Department for Transport has given you an exclusive scoop? :-)
More scrappage schemes seem a fairly safe prediction, for a number of reasons. No scoop needed.
Remind us of those number of reasons.
1 - Need to support dropping car sales
2 - Convince people to keep on buying new cars
3 - Keep the idea of new cars firmly in people's minds while trading on a scheme that makes it sound like you are being given something
4 - Make cars less polluting
-
Remind us of those number of reasons.
Tanking economy, tanking car manufactoring sector, need to meet much tougher emissions targets, etc...
Or we may just end up scavenging for water among the ruins of a once great civilisation...
J
-
To Ham's list we could possibly add:
5 - To mop up overproduction
6 - To support employment at car factories
7 - (UK-specific) At attempt to delay the closure of those factories due to loss of markets
But those are really subsets of the reasons Ham's given.
-
The car industry is one of the most parasitical, we pay the costs – direct and indirect – they simply take the money. Society has been tailored to simply hand them the money. Ironically, there's little national loyalty, once governments stop ponying up taxpayer cash, they go somewhere else. Plus more and more car sales are simply financial instruments, that debt gets derivatized, securitized and sold on in the usual ways.
I'm really not clear on the benefits – if there's any benefit – of widespread car reliance.
-
The car industry is one of the most parasitical, we pay the costs – direct and indirect – they simply take the money. Society has been tailored to simply hand them the money. Ironically, there's little national loyalty, once governments stop ponying up taxpayer cash, they go somewhere else. Plus more and more car sales are simply financial instruments, that debt gets derivatized, securitized and sold on in the usual ways.
I'm really not clear on the benefits – if there's any benefit – of widespread car reliance.
Jobs.
Manufacturing jobs.
Servicing jobs (the garage doing the maintenance work etc...)
Admin jobs (managing all that debt and loan setups)
Transport to/from jobs (Our society is setup where for many people there just isn't an alternative to the car for getting to work, sure a bike works but over 20km, each way and even someone like me starts to think it's a bit far. When I lived in Canterbury the places I could reasonably get a job were largely limited to poor bus routes and the trains routes, because I didn't own a car. I missed out on one job as there was no bus that could get me there early enough in the morning, by 20 minutes. Another I could get to, but not home from. etc...)
The dependency tree of the car, and the critical path analysis to get rid of it is rather complex. With massive amounts of chicken/egg involved.
J
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
£30 p.a. for my car. Hardly a significant cost, compared to servicing or insurance. Anyone paying significantly more has chosen to drive an inefficient vehicle.
One take, but tell me, how would your choice fare, driving four people and luggage on holiday? Carrying 700kg of stone? etc etc.
We have two cars, my wife's £25 VED p.a. petrol fuelled is the local runaround, ten years old and averages less than 3000 miles a year. My diesel grandpawagon is as big as it gets for load carrying, relatively tardis like as it is smaller on the outside yet of larger internal capacity than the competition (yeah, I know it is still big). Used overwhelmingly for long trips and load carrying capability, average around 8k miles pa. It is currently averaging the same sort of consumption as the small petrol and it is capable of genuine mid-to-high 60's mpg consumption on an economy run. So, actually very efficient for its size and reasonably efficient in absolute terms. My VED? Currently £500 pa.
I can't speak for Jaded, but our main family car is a huge estate (Dacia Logan), only slightly smaller than the Passat Est I had 15 years ago, and VED is 'Nil' on the form we received yesterday.
But while it does nearly 3 times the mpg of our second vehicle (a campervan) it also does over 4-times the annual miles, so there's definitely a mismatch in the taxation system. I'd favour a fuel (or power-source in deference to EVs) levy in general, but that does have the psychological problem of being absorbed into the 'general living expenses' bill. Perhaps there should be a mileage-based charge levied at the MOT test (or scrappage date for those that don't get re-MOTed)?
-
One take, but tell me, how would your choice fare, driving four people and luggage on holiday? Carrying 700kg of stone? etc etc.
We have two cars, my wife's £25 VED p.a. petrol fuelled is the local runaround, ten years old and averages less than 3000 miles a year. My diesel grandpawagon is as big as it gets for load carrying, relatively tardis like as it is smaller on the outside yet of larger internal capacity than the competition (yeah, I know it is still big). Used overwhelmingly for long trips and load carrying capability, average around 8k miles pa. It is currently averaging the same sort of consumption as the small petrol and it is capable of genuine mid-to-high 60's mpg consumption on an economy run. So, actually very efficient for its size and reasonably efficient in absolute terms. My VED? Currently £500 pa.
And this is why I say scrap VED, it's no longer fit for purpose.
One question I have for you tho is this: What is the PM2.5, PM10, and NOX emissions like on your vehicle?
J
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
£30 p.a. for my car. Hardly a significant cost, compared to servicing or insurance. Anyone paying significantly more has chosen to drive an inefficient vehicle.
One take, but tell me, how would your choice fare, driving four people and luggage on holiday? Carrying 700kg of stone? etc etc.
We have two cars, my wife's £25 VED p.a. petrol fuelled is the local runaround, ten years old and averages less than 3000 miles a year. My diesel grandpawagon is as big as it gets for load carrying, relatively tardis like as it is smaller on the outside yet of larger internal capacity than the competition (yeah, I know it is still big). Used overwhelmingly for long trips and load carrying capability, average around 8k miles pa. It is currently averaging the same sort of consumption as the small petrol and it is capable of genuine mid-to-high 60's mpg consumption on an economy run. So, actually very efficient for its size and reasonably efficient in absolute terms. My VED? Currently £500 pa.
The question is more about whether it will be possible to go on ‘holiday’ in such a way. If one has a big car, it gets used.
Fewer holidays, less luggage, I imagine is the answer to your question. Not very palatable, though.
-
The car industry is one of the most parasitical, we pay the costs – direct and indirect – they simply take the money. Society has been tailored to simply hand them the money. Ironically, there's little national loyalty, once governments stop ponying up taxpayer cash, they go somewhere else. Plus more and more car sales are simply financial instruments, that debt gets derivatized, securitized and sold on in the usual ways.
I'm really not clear on the benefits – if there's any benefit – of widespread car reliance.
Jobs.
Manufacturing jobs.
Servicing jobs (the garage doing the maintenance work etc...)
Admin jobs (managing all that debt and loan setups)
Transport to/from jobs (Our society is setup where for many people there just isn't an alternative to the car for getting to work, sure a bike works but over 20km, each way and even someone like me starts to think it's a bit far. When I lived in Canterbury the places I could reasonably get a job were largely limited to poor bus routes and the trains routes, because I didn't own a car. I missed out on one job as there was no bus that could get me there early enough in the morning, by 20 minutes. Another I could get to, but not home from. etc...)
The dependency tree of the car, and the critical path analysis to get rid of it is rather complex. With massive amounts of chicken/egg involved.
But these are engineered outcomes. People often state jobs, but really cars just enabled jobs to delocalize, so workers instead spend 45 mins a day in traffic to an out-of-town industrial estate. The business get cheaper rents and leases; the employees pay for a car, fuel, and their time. The benefits don't accrue to the car owner. Couple that with the obsession that everyone has to work, all families must have two jobs, because that's the only way to pay for a lifestyle that requires multiple cars, etc. Cars are sold as aspirational avenues to freedom when really they're the complete opposite.
Think of the nicest places to live and work and what they have in common? It's a lack of vehicles and the dependency.
-
^ spot on.
-
One take, but tell me, how would your choice fare, driving four people and luggage on holiday? Carrying 700kg of stone? etc etc.
We have two cars, my wife's £25 VED p.a. petrol fuelled is the local runaround, ten years old and averages less than 3000 miles a year. My diesel grandpawagon is as big as it gets for load carrying, relatively tardis like as it is smaller on the outside yet of larger internal capacity than the competition (yeah, I know it is still big). Used overwhelmingly for long trips and load carrying capability, average around 8k miles pa. It is currently averaging the same sort of consumption as the small petrol and it is capable of genuine mid-to-high 60's mpg consumption on an economy run. So, actually very efficient for its size and reasonably efficient in absolute terms. My VED? Currently £500 pa.
The question is more about whether it will be possible to go on ‘holiday’ in such a way. If one has a big car, it gets used.
Fewer holidays, less luggage, I imagine is the answer to your question. Not very palatable, though.
I don't keep an aeroplane in the basement for the 1 week a year I want to fly away on holiday. So why keep a car around for the one week a year you need to drive on holiday? Surely if you need a car to get to/from work. Then owning a cheap EV runabout, and then hiring something bigger for the 2 week holiday has to be more cost effective?
But these are engineered outcomes. People often state jobs, but really cars just enabled jobs to delocalize, so workers instead spend 45 mins a day in traffic to an out-of-town industrial estate. The business get cheaper rents and leases; the employees pay for a car, fuel, and their time. The benefits don't accrue to the car owner. Couple that with the obsession that everyone has to work, all families must have two jobs, because that's the only way to pay for a lifestyle that requires multiple cars, etc. Cars are sold as aspirational avenues to freedom when really they're the complete opposite.
Think of the nicest places to live and work and what they have in common? It's a lack of vehicles and the dependency.
Agreed. But how do we change it? How do we make the firms move their offices back into the city centre? Do we want the steel plant closer to town so people don't have to drive etc... ?
We need to massively improve public transport, running it as something where the purpose is to transport the public, where they need to go, when they need to go. Once public transport, accompanied by active travel, are available, then people can start thinking about getting rid of their cars. But unless we provide an alternative, it's not gonna happen.
J
-
Re: scrappage. That's about government-sponsored scrappage schemes. Manufacturer and dealer scrappage schemes are going on all the time.
-
One take, but tell me, how would your choice fare, driving four people and luggage on holiday? Carrying 700kg of stone? etc etc.
We have two cars, my wife's £25 VED p.a. petrol fuelled is the local runaround, ten years old and averages less than 3000 miles a year. My diesel grandpawagon is as big as it gets for load carrying, relatively tardis like as it is smaller on the outside yet of larger internal capacity than the competition (yeah, I know it is still big). Used overwhelmingly for long trips and load carrying capability, average around 8k miles pa. It is currently averaging the same sort of consumption as the small petrol and it is capable of genuine mid-to-high 60's mpg consumption on an economy run. So, actually very efficient for its size and reasonably efficient in absolute terms. My VED? Currently £500 pa.
The question is more about whether it will be possible to go on ‘holiday’ in such a way. If one has a big car, it gets used.
Fewer holidays, less luggage, I imagine is the answer to your question. Not very palatable, though.
I don't keep an aeroplane in the basement for the 1 week a year I want to fly away on holiday. So why keep a car around for the one week a year you need to drive on holiday? Surely if you need a car to get to/from work. Then owning a cheap EV runabout, and then hiring something bigger for the 2 week holiday has to be more cost effective?
But these are engineered outcomes. People often state jobs, but really cars just enabled jobs to delocalize, so workers instead spend 45 mins a day in traffic to an out-of-town industrial estate. The business get cheaper rents and leases; the employees pay for a car, fuel, and their time. The benefits don't accrue to the car owner. Couple that with the obsession that everyone has to work, all families must have two jobs, because that's the only way to pay for a lifestyle that requires multiple cars, etc. Cars are sold as aspirational avenues to freedom when really they're the complete opposite.
Think of the nicest places to live and work and what they have in common? It's a lack of vehicles and the dependency.
Agreed. But how do we change it? How do we make the firms move their offices back into the city centre? Do we want the steel plant closer to town so people don't have to drive etc... ?
We need to massively improve public transport, running it as something where the purpose is to transport the public, where they need to go, when they need to go. Once public transport, accompanied by active travel, are available, then people can start thinking about getting rid of their cars. But unless we provide an alternative, it's not gonna happen.
J
Public transport doesn’t work for many/most because of private transport, which, as ian says, has developed a dependency in society. It took us 70 years to get into this mess, we haven’t got 70 years to get out of it.
-
Public transport doesn’t work for many/most because of private transport, which, as ian says, has developed a dependency in society. It took us 70 years to get into this mess, we haven’t got 70 years to get out of it.
Lets get radical. Lets make public transport that works.
J
-
Public transport doesn’t work for many/most because of private transport, which, as ian says, has developed a dependency in society. It took us 70 years to get into this mess, we haven’t got 70 years to get out of it.
Lets get radical. Lets make public transport that works.
J
That's not even radical, it's simultaneously impossible and already here, depending on where you are (mostly but only geographically). But it's not getting us out of either the car-dependency mess or the planet mess. Probably because it's still transport.
-
Public transport doesn’t work for many/most because of private transport, which, as ian says, has developed a dependency in society. It took us 70 years to get into this mess, we haven’t got 70 years to get out of it.
Lets get radical. Lets make public transport that works.
J
You are missing the point industrially. Public transport will not work in an society where almost every journey made, almost every employment choice, almost every house purchase or rental, is a private journey. Public transport works when clumps of people go from one place to another, or along a route.
We have set up a society where cars allow us to go where we want when we want. Public transport doesn’t do that. A major cost of the cheaper premises out of town is the loss of public transport.
-
I don't keep an aeroplane in the basement for the 1 week a year I want to fly away on holiday. So why keep a car around for the one week a year you need to drive on holiday? Surely if you need a car to get to/from work. Then owning a cheap EV runabout, and then hiring something bigger for the 2 week holiday has to be more cost effective?
Renting a large car at peak holiday time even once a year is going to kill any cost savings of having a smaller regular car. And that’s before the rental company adds spurious charges (or not spurious, if kids have been near it). And assuming you can get one - rental fleets tend to be mostly small/medium cars.
Also i don’t think there’s such a thing as a cheap EV runabout yet.
-
I can't speak for Jaded, but our main family car is a huge estate (Dacia Logan), only slightly smaller than the Passat Est I had 15 years ago, and VED is 'Nil' on the form we received yesterday.
But while it does nearly 3 times the mpg of our second vehicle (a campervan) it also does over 4-times the annual miles, so there's definitely a mismatch in the taxation system. I'd favour a fuel (or power-source in deference to EVs) levy in general, but that does have the psychological problem of being absorbed into the 'general living expenses' bill. Perhaps there should be a mileage-based charge levied at the MOT test (or scrappage date for those that don't get re-MOTed)?
I was more commenting on wycombewheeler's "anything more than £30". Just for the record, the current Dacia logan is actually the same annual, VED as my grandpawagon, except I'm being stiffed £500 as the list price was over £40k (although I paid >1/3 less)
One question I have for you tho is this: What is the PM2.5, PM10, and NOX emissions like on your vehicle?
Data by vehicle doesn't seem to be available, as far as I can see modern engines are better
The question is more about whether it will be possible to go on ‘holiday’ in such a way. If one has a big car, it gets used.
Fewer holidays, less luggage, I imagine is the answer to your question. Not very palatable, though.
Fewer holidays is indeed a lifestyle choice, the mode of going on those holidays will only vary the degree of impact. I chose a big car to do big car things (chuck a pram and bike in the back etc etc) and rarely use it for "convenience" things.
We need to massively improve public transport, running it as something where the purpose is to transport the public, where they need to go, when they need to go. Once public transport, accompanied by active travel, are available, then people can start thinking about getting rid of their cars. But unless we provide an alternative, it's not gonna happen.
This is the heart of it, including making travel options easier (eg cycle infrastructure) and less travelling required.
-
A pram and a bike thrown in a car are absolutely modern day ‘convenience things’. They are possible because of the way cars have bludgeoned their way into our society.
-
A pram and a bike thrown in a car are absolutely modern day ‘convenience things’. They are possible because of the way cars have bludgeoned their way into our society.
Cars haven't bludgeoned there way into our society, they have shaped it and - to anthropomorphise - they have placed themselves at our heart. But of course, it is we who have done that. We who have families that are close but separated by distance (etc etc etc). Blaming cars for that is like blaming them for crashes that happen.
It's not modern day "convenience" it's modern day life. Convenience use is using a car when there are practical alternatives.
-
Public transport doesn’t work for many/most because of private transport, which, as ian says, has developed a dependency in society. It took us 70 years to get into this mess, we haven’t got 70 years to get out of it.
Lets get radical. Lets make public transport that works.
J
You are missing the point industrially. Public transport will not work in an society where almost every journey made, almost every employment choice, almost every house purchase or rental, is a private journey. Public transport works when clumps of people go from one place to another, or along a route.
We have set up a society where cars allow us to go where we want when we want. Public transport doesn’t do that. A major cost of the cheaper premises out of town is the loss of public transport.
There are lots of things that can be done in addition to better public transport: remove the incentives for out-of-town builds (and do vice versa), stop putting hospitals/schools in the middle of nowhere, stop building disconnected housing estates with laughable transport provision, etc. etc.
Of course, it's a change, but our current behaviour is unsustainable and frankly, when people really think about it, is it really the environment we want to live in. Do people actually enjoy having to rush about in the morning to drive their kids to school, make plans for every afternoon, do they enjoy sitting in traffic, do they enjoyed toiling around the same bloody supermarket? I doubt it. I've yet to see a car advert that pitches this.
-
A pram and a bike thrown in a car are absolutely modern day ‘convenience things’. They are possible because of the way cars have bludgeoned their way into our society.
Cars haven't bludgeoned there way into our society, they have shaped it and - to anthropomorphise - they have placed themselves at our heart. But of course, it is we who have done that. We who have families that are close but separated by distance (etc etc etc). Blaming cars for that is like blaming them for crashes that happen.
It's not modern day "convenience" it's modern day life. Convenience use is using a car when there are practical alternatives.
Cars have created situations that are now used to justify car ownership and use.
It may well be 'modern day life' but it isn't sustainable.
-
And it's only modern day life for those with the privileges that allow for car use in the first place. Everyone else has to muddle along in a world optimised (I use the term loosely) for private motoring.
-
The problem with cars is that they bludgeon all other modes off the road. Buses are slow and rubbish because they get stuck in queue of cars; cycling is close to dead in most places because no one dare cycle; kids can’t walk to school because the roads are too dangerous; etc. It only takes a small fraction of people *wanting* to use cars to create a situation where everyone has to either get their own car or stay indoors.
-
Everything is invested in making cars the 'easiest' option, from broken public transport to the growing road infrastructure, the delegation of public space to parking, etc. Vast amounts of money are spent to making this the case and preserving this status quo.
The alternatives are generally punitive. You want to walk, then good luck. The pavements will be blocked by cars and likely dirty and in poor condition (nor will it be cleared of snow or ice), step into the road and risk a speeding, aggressive motorist (because we have effectively ceased road policing), find a crossing and wait for the motor vehicles to take precedence until you get impatience and risk crossing. Cycle? You have to put up with the same aggressive drivers. Very little money has been spent.
Of course, your local shops have probably gone, killed by the car too. People bleat about the lack of parking which is nonsensical, but once people are in their car, they don't go local, they drive to the usual places.
-
Agree with Ian's last paragraph, I think the Netherlands-in-Walthamstow underlined this.
All leading to why we need a multi pronged approach.
-VED based on emissions and on axle weight and overall footprint (widest-x-longest-x-highest dimension)
emissions - how much the air is being wrecked to the detriment of health etc
axle weight - how often the roads will need mending/how robust they need to be
overall footprint - how much public space the vehicle consumes when in use
-make walking etc a desirable choice - qv the no-car zones in ?Barcelona, filtered permeability, prioritising non-vehicle flow at junctions/ped crossings etc.
-plan to phase out on-street parking - seeing as it's obvious when a car was produced, can we ban it for all cars produced after <date> except in designated zones (ie move the default to "you can't park here"), then make general after a number of years [this needs a bit more working through, perhaps you can buy permission to park where older cars can etc.. But as with anything need to work to ensure it doesn't disproportionally impact less well off etc]
-
-make walking etc a desirable choice - qv the no-car zones in ?Barcelona,
Superblocks.
https://theconversation.com/superblocks-barcelonas-car-free-zones-could-extend-lives-and-boost-mental-health-123295
-
Governments won't do any of this when a large proportion of GDP is based around the vehicle manufacturing industry. Look at when Volkswagen cheated the system, the German government and the EU slapped a few wrists, paid off some senior employees who were probably due for retirement anyway and encouraged a development of an electric range. If they really clamped down hard then VW would have been in dire financial problems but because it's employing thousands of people across Europe and propping up most of the economy as well as strong lobby groups knocking on the doors of their respective parliaments it is considered better if we keep buying shiny new cars and the vast amounts of fuel they need.
-
Some governments may do...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49991051
-
Good! But Scotland doesn't have any car manufacturing. Whereas England does and has had similar legislation for years – only implemented in Nottingham, just as only Glasgow and Edinburgh are saying they plan to implement it in Scotland.
-
And I'm not sure how much of Nottingham's modal shift is down to the parking levy, rather than the improved transport options that it's funded. All those park-and-ride users are still driving, they just cause a bit less congestion. It's important not to confuse park-and-ride with public transport.
-
Governments won't do any of this when a large proportion of GDP is based around the vehicle manufacturing industry. Look at when Volkswagen cheated the system, the German government and the EU slapped a few wrists, paid off some senior employees who were probably due for retirement anyway and encouraged a development of an electric range. If they really clamped down hard then VW would have been in dire financial problems but because it's employing thousands of people across Europe and propping up most of the economy as well as strong lobby groups knocking on the doors of their respective parliaments it is considered better if we keep buying shiny new cars and the vast amounts of fuel they need.
Vehicle manufacturing is typically around 3% of the GDP, so while significant it's not huge, and it's employing fewer and fewer as labour has been even more automated or sent somewhere cheaper. They do have an excellent and well-establish lobby though at both national government and EU level. More worrying is fewer and fewer people are buying new cars, instead they're buying financial products that are using debt to effectively buy the cars.
-
Well that way you guarantee a new car every three years (or sooner) without any further financial outlay and the system self perpetuates.
-
Governments won't do any of this when a large proportion of GDP is based around the vehicle manufacturing industry. Look at when Volkswagen cheated the system, the German government and the EU slapped a few wrists, paid off some senior employees who were probably due for retirement anyway and encouraged a development of an electric range. If they really clamped down hard then VW would have been in dire financial problems but because it's employing thousands of people across Europe and propping up most of the economy as well as strong lobby groups knocking on the doors of their respective parliaments it is considered better if we keep buying shiny new cars and the vast amounts of fuel they need.
Vehicle manufacturing is typically around 3% of the GDP, so while significant it's not huge, and it's employing fewer and fewer as labour has been even more automated or sent somewhere cheaper. They do have an excellent and well-establish lobby though at both national government and EU level. More worrying is fewer and fewer people are buying new cars, instead they're buying financial products that are using debt to effectively buy the cars.
It is true that the lessons of 2008 have not be learnt by the consumer or the lender. The majority of those new cars on the road are not paid for.
I bought a new car almost a year ago. I knew which model I wanted and we sat with the salesman for an hour while he worked out his best deal. When we got to how I was going to pay I said a small trade in (old car was 10 years old with 108,000miles) and the rest in cash. He then started on the hard sell of the financing options. I happen to be reasonably financially savvy and initially resisted however I was offered a £2,700 discount if I took the car on hire purchase (divide the total by 24, add a bit of interest and pay by direct debit). Total interest cost - £800. £1,900 better off and spreading the cost over 2 years. Who wouldn't do that deal ?
There seems to be a bizarre disconnect in that the dealer is taking on more risk whilst getting paid less for the same item. I can't understand the business model but then I never was the smartest guy in the room.
-
Governments won't do any of this when a large proportion of GDP is based around the vehicle manufacturing industry. Look at when Volkswagen cheated the system, the German government and the EU slapped a few wrists, paid off some senior employees who were probably due for retirement anyway and encouraged a development of an electric range. If they really clamped down hard then VW would have been in dire financial problems but because it's employing thousands of people across Europe and propping up most of the economy as well as strong lobby groups knocking on the doors of their respective parliaments it is considered better if we keep buying shiny new cars and the vast amounts of fuel they need.
Vehicle manufacturing is typically around 3% of the GDP, so while significant it's not huge, and it's employing fewer and fewer as labour has been even more automated or sent somewhere cheaper. They do have an excellent and well-establish lobby though at both national government and EU level. More worrying is fewer and fewer people are buying new cars, instead they're buying financial products that are using debt to effectively buy the cars.
It is true that the lessons of 2008 have not be learnt by the consumer or the lender. The majority of those new cars on the road are not paid for.
I bought a new car almost a year ago. I knew which model I wanted and we sat with the salesman for an hour while he worked out his best deal. When we got to how I was going to pay I said a small trade in (old car was 10 years old with 108,000miles) and the rest in cash. He then started on the hard sell of the financing options. I happen to be reasonably financially savvy and initially resisted however I was offered a £2,700 discount if I took the car on hire purchase (divide the total by 24, add a bit of interest and pay by direct debit). Total interest cost - £800. £1,900 better off and spreading the cost over 2 years. Who wouldn't do that deal ?
There seems to be a bizarre disconnect in that the dealer is taking on more risk whilst getting paid less for the same item. I can't understand the business model but then I never was the smartest guy in the room.
You are at least buying the car. If you run it ten years and do 100,000 miles like the last one then you have easily paid of the loan accrued over two years and got yourself a good deal. The lease market doesn't even cover for that, like renting property you pay out but never actually own the thing. If money suddenly becomes tight (redundancy, long term sick etc) you become screwed without even the asset that might get you to your next interview or pay cheque.
As for the risk element that's no longer the dealer's risk. That is passed onto the finance company funding the loan. If you default it is down the them to claim the money, not the dealer. The finance company is already covering the risk in their assessment of the interest they are taking so they won't lose any money. On that particular case it might cost them a bit of profit but in the main the system is set up that the risk is measured in very small percentages. It's like insurance, most people who have insurance don't claim so they fund the ones who do but this has the benefit of being legally allowed to further charge the defaulter and get the losses back. Then in the worst case they claim the car back and take as much money as they can through selling it via auctions.
At least I think that's how it works but I'm not in finance
-
I take it there's some clause that means the discount is contingent on you not paying off the car early?
(If it's an HP agreement it legally can't have early repayment penalties.)
Otherwise the obvious thing to do would be to buy it using their finance, getting £2700 off the price of the car, and then paying off the loan ASAP in full.
-
I take it there's some clause that means the discount is contingent on you not paying off the car early?
(If it's an HP agreement it legally can't have early repayment penalties.)
Otherwise the obvious thing to do would be to buy it using their finance, getting £2700 off the price of the car, and then paying off the loan ASAP in full.
You can pay it off early at the cost of one month's interest so less than £50. I haven't bothered yet as I need to keep spare funds available but, yes, that is what I should have done.
Whilst I'm not that old I do recall that you used to get a discount if you paid up front in cash. Seems the other way round now.
-
There seems to be a bizarre disconnect in that the dealer is taking on more risk whilst getting paid less for the same item. I can't understand the business model but then I never was the smartest guy in the room.
I don't understand it either, but a good first-order approximation is that the cars are coincidental, and the dealer is in the finance package business. (See also: higher-end consumer electronics and whitegoods.)
Seems to me that wherever Actual Stuff gets sidelined by financial shenanigans, it's a recipe for doom at some point.
-
It is possible that the dealer is 'bonused' on how many financial deals sold.
They certainly used to have bonuses on numbers of cars sold. The end of a financial period was a good time to buy a car.
-
There seems to be a bizarre disconnect in that the dealer is taking on more risk whilst getting paid less for the same item. I can't understand the business model but then I never was the smartest guy in the room.
I don't understand it either, but a good first-order approximation is that the cars are coincidental, and the dealer is in the finance package business. (See also: higher-end consumer electronics and whitegoods.)
Seems to me that wherever Actual Stuff gets sidelined by financial shenanigans, it's a recipe for doom at some point.
It's this. Vehicle financing is far more profitable than the vehicle. A financial product costs nothing to manufacture, cars are effectively an expensive, low margin commodity. Dealers are now incentivized to sell finance packages. Credit is cheap (at the moment) and risk is ostensibly mitigated through securitization.
Which works until it doesn't and people lose the ability to make their repayments, for instance, if interest rates rise. In theory, the higher risk loans with be securitized in their own products, and thus the risk recognized by the buyer (more risk, more return obvs), but recent history should remind us that it doesn't happen, repayment risk isn't recognised at the level of person who sells you the car, mortgage etc. and as such it gets blended, so if there's a large default, it hits all the securitized products in the sector, and people panic to cover their position (more complex, there's a second tier of products that effectively insure – or bet on default, depending on your level of cynicism). That's the last financial crisis in a nutshell. Bigger money, certainly, but the same structural problem (it can be applied to all consumer debt – debt is effectively the most traded 'commodity' in the world, not product).
So, if a significant number of people lose the ability to make payments on their shiny new SUV and can't pony up £35k, then they default and lose the cars, the manufacturers lose because they were never actually paid, and a lot of over-priced second-hand cars hit a market that doesn't want and can't afford them.
-
In rob's case it really doesn't make sense:-
a) Dealer accepts £10 for the item. rob pays cash. There is zero risk for the dealer. Dealer ends up with £10.
b) Dealer offers £1 discount if bought by finance. rob agrees. rob pays finance company £9 with 50p interested added to make £9.50. Dealer receives £8.50. There is no risk for the dealer.
I guess they assume that a percentage of people paying by finance will end up:
a) returning the car part way through (so they pay at least half of the car back and end up with no car). Dealer wins as they get a car back whilst still getting money for it, or they get to buy the car back for cheaper from the financing company (which doesn't want the actual car), etc.
b) having the car repossessed for not keeping up payments on it (dealer wins as above)
For rob's situation maybe they believe that someone willing to pay cash up front is better off being guided towards financing in the hope that they'll end up using their cash for other purposes and then failing to keep up repayments on the car and becoming one of the small percentage of financed lot who they make significant money from.
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
£30 p.a. for my car. Hardly a significant cost, compared to servicing or insurance. Anyone paying significantly more has chosen to drive an inefficient vehicle.
If it had risen in line with inflation since the year I was old enough to drive, it would be £290 (according to the Bank of England inflation calculator). Why have we let it become so crazily cheap?
VED for my daily driver is £465 - and was £1280 for its first year (it's a 2019 car, so I'm not sure how I got away with £465!). It's not particularly inefficient, but it is a minor-league wankpanzer. My playtime toy is £260 pa, but given that it does fewer miles than I do on my bike (and some of that is on the track), its VED/mile is quite a lot. I pay them in one hit, as I do the insurance, just to remind myself what it costs to retain personal transport. Once I retire, next year, I will reassess what my transport needs and desires are. My WP is used for towing a caravan from time to time, but it may be that a single electric vehicle will replace both cars and I'll swap campsites for BnBs (there being no electric cars yet that can tow a significant weight)!
-
Governments won't do any of this when a large proportion of GDP is based around the vehicle manufacturing industry. Look at when Volkswagen cheated the system, the German government and the EU slapped a few wrists, paid off some senior employees who were probably due for retirement anyway and encouraged a development of an electric range. If they really clamped down hard then VW would have been in dire financial problems but because it's employing thousands of people across Europe and propping up most of the economy as well as strong lobby groups knocking on the doors of their respective parliaments it is considered better if we keep buying shiny new cars and the vast amounts of fuel they need.
Vehicle manufacturing is typically around 3% of the GDP, so while significant it's not huge, and it's employing fewer and fewer as labour has been even more automated or sent somewhere cheaper. They do have an excellent and well-establish lobby though at both national government and EU level. More worrying is fewer and fewer people are buying new cars, instead they're buying financial products that are using debt to effectively buy the cars.
It is true that the lessons of 2008 have not be learnt by the consumer or the lender. The majority of those new cars on the road are not paid for.
I bought a new car almost a year ago. I knew which model I wanted and we sat with the salesman for an hour while he worked out his best deal. When we got to how I was going to pay I said a small trade in (old car was 10 years old with 108,000miles) and the rest in cash. He then started on the hard sell of the financing options. I happen to be reasonably financially savvy and initially resisted however I was offered a £2,700 discount if I took the car on hire purchase (divide the total by 24, add a bit of interest and pay by direct debit). Total interest cost - £800. £1,900 better off and spreading the cost over 2 years. Who wouldn't do that deal ?
There seems to be a bizarre disconnect in that the dealer is taking on more risk whilst getting paid less for the same item. I can't understand the business model but then I never was the smartest guy in the room.
What's more you can often pay the loan back early saving a big chunk of that 800.
But finance is subsidised as the makers know people on finance schemes are more likely to buy another car when the term ends, even more so if there is a final payment equal to the value of the car at that time.
You can pay us 6000 and keep the car, of hand it over and take a new one with the same monthly payments you are used to making.
-
The overwhelming majority of new cars these days are bought and financed based on the amount of car you will use over its finance life - what it is worth then compared to what the purchase price is. thus a £30k car can be yours for £4k/year - finance for £15k value.
This all depends on the second hand value of cars holding up, part of which is the emperor's new clothes effect of _having_ to buy a new car every 3-4 years. If second hand values drop, as I suspect they may well, like a stone, over the next year or so post Brexit, the whole stack of cards tumbles down.
-
VED provides an annual shock of the cost of car ownership, and as Cudzo says hits low mileage users of cars too.
Basically, there needs to be behavioural change level charges on private transport.
£30 p.a. for my car. Hardly a significant cost, compared to servicing or insurance. Anyone paying significantly more has chosen to drive an inefficient vehicle.
One take, but tell me, how would your choice fare, driving four people and luggage on holiday? Carrying 700kg of stone? etc etc.
We have two cars, my wife's £25 VED p.a. petrol fuelled is the local runaround, ten years old and averages less than 3000 miles a year. My diesel grandpawagon is as big as it gets for load carrying, relatively tardis like as it is smaller on the outside yet of larger internal capacity than the competition (yeah, I know it is still big). Used overwhelmingly for long trips and load carrying capability, average around 8k miles pa. It is currently averaging the same sort of consumption as the small petrol and it is capable of genuine mid-to-high 60's mpg consumption on an economy run. So, actually very efficient for its size and reasonably efficient in absolute terms. My VED? Currently £500 pa.
A6 avant. 4 people and luggage, no worries. 700kg of stone seems a lot. Probably needs a crew cab pick up.
-
In rob's case it really doesn't make sense:-
a) Dealer accepts £10 for the item. rob pays cash. There is zero risk for the dealer. Dealer ends up with £10.
b) Dealer offers £1 discount if bought by finance. rob agrees. rob pays finance company £9 with 50p interested added to make £9.50. Dealer receives £8.50. There is no risk for the dealer.
Often, dealers make a significant amount of their profit from the bonuses offered by manufacturers and finance houses for volume sales. Margin on cars is fairly tight, but there may be discount schemes that the manufacturer will allow a certain number of per quarter (Nissan used to do this - almost every Leaf seemed to be bought on a "friends and family" discount meaning that you paid a few grand less, Nissan ate the cost, and the dealer got their sale).
The end result of this shenanigans is that the dealer makes no margin on the car, the manufacturer pays the discount, and then the dealer takes the commission on the finance package and the volume bonuses from the manufacturer and the finance house.
I bought my Zoe on HP because there was a big discount (and then paid the outstanding balance a month or so later). They also had a 0% finance package, but you had to pay the full amount, so it was much more expensive.
As for the PCP bubble, the finance houses (and those buying the bonds they issue) are taking a huge risk IMO. It's one thing securitizing the cashflow against a house at a sensible LTV where you can repossess it and cover the total amount outstanding. It's another using a depreciating vehicle with a deposit that doesn't cover the first day depreciation as a security. A lot of schemes offer a low guaranteed future value as a way of trying to make the customer cover the gap between a fair market value and a distressed sale, but that drives the monthly payments up and if you do it properly you are uncompetitive. I wonder if it only works as it does because the finance houses are rolled into the car manufacturers (at one stage in recent history, GM the car manufacturing business was being propped up by GM the finance company).
-
Indeed, that's the other major failure point, they're dependent on a second-hand market holding up and the continual purchase of new cars. All it takes is a shift ownership patterns and oopsy. And yes, a rapidly depreciating asset, it's like mortgaging a house that that is likely to fall down in ten years (that's you, Bellway, that is).
If there is a major default, then of course, the second-hand market will be flooded anyway. It's a good job a lot of people aren't completely reliant on their cars.
-
I increasingly think the solution is carbon rationing. Where we assess what our emissions are and what we would like them to be, and everyone gets a carbon allowance for gas, non renewable electricity, fuel, travel, maybe even all goods.
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
-
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
Except it's not the same for everyone, is it? Rich people can afford to use less fuel to heat their homes, because theirs aren't built to landlord spec. They might even have their own renewable energy sources.
-
I increasingly think the solution is carbon rationing. Where we assess what our emissions are and what we would like them to be, and everyone gets a carbon allowance for gas, non renewable electricity, fuel, travel, maybe even all goods.
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
^ ^ ^ This ^ ^ ^
-
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
Except it's not the same for everyone, is it? Rich people can afford to use less fuel to heat their homes, because theirs aren't built to landlord spec. They might even have their own renewable energy sources.
Carbon usage comes off landlord's carbon allowance. That would encourage them to insulate the property properly. With adjustments for commercial landlords.
-
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
Except it's not the same for everyone, is it? Rich people can afford to use less fuel to heat their homes, because theirs aren't built to landlord spec. They might even have their own renewable energy sources.
Carbon usage comes off landlord's carbon allowance. That would encourage them to insulate the property properly. With adjustments for commercial landlords.
Courageous, as they say in Yes Minister.
-
£30 p.a. for my car. ....
A6 avant. 4 people and luggage, no worries. 700kg of stone seems a lot. Probably needs a crew cab pick up.
? ? ? ?
https://www.parkers.co.uk/audi/a6/avant-2018/car-tax/
Maybe yours is the previous regime? It's changed now.
Which FTR is the same as the grandpawagon, they are very similar cars, although I have the slight edge on capacity.
-
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
Except it's not the same for everyone, is it? Rich people can afford to use less fuel to heat their homes, because theirs aren't built to landlord spec. They might even have their own renewable energy sources.
Carbon usage comes off landlord's carbon allowance. That would encourage them to insulate the property properly. With adjustments for commercial landlords.
Courageous, as they say in Yes Minister.
:-)
A man can dream can't he ??
-
Could be worse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49983397
-
I increasingly think the solution is carbon rationing. Where we assess what our emissions are and what we would like them to be, and everyone gets a carbon allowance for gas, non renewable electricity, fuel, travel, maybe even all goods.
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
I like that idea, if it means I can sell some of my rations for cash. I'd save even more money by being too mean to heat my home very much or use a car.
-
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
Except it's not the same for everyone, is it? Rich people can afford to use less fuel to heat their homes, because theirs aren't built to landlord spec. They might even have their own renewable energy sources.
True, but this is the same for everything. It the price of gas goes up 10% I can grumble about British Gas, but I'm not going to spend my evenings shivering.
The secret, of course, is not to rely on landlords and developers to do the right thing because they'll do the cheap thing. It's the legislate that they do the right thing.
Looks at current government: we're fucked. Remember, these were the people who gave Persimmon so much money their CEO had to quit out of embarrassment.
-
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
Except it's not the same for everyone, is it? Rich people can afford to use less fuel to heat their homes, because theirs aren't built to landlord spec. They might even have their own renewable energy sources.
If anything it probably costs more as the homes are bigger
-
£30 p.a. for my car. ....
A6 avant. 4 people and luggage, no worries. 700kg of stone seems a lot. Probably needs a crew cab pick up.
? ? ? ?
https://www.parkers.co.uk/audi/a6/avant-2018/car-tax/
Maybe yours is the previous regime? It's changed now.
Which FTR is the same as the grandpawagon, they are very similar cars, although I have the slight edge on capacity.
64 plate 2.0 tdi uktra
-
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
Except it's not the same for everyone, is it? Rich people can afford to use less fuel to heat their homes, because theirs aren't built to landlord spec. They might even have their own renewable energy sources.
True, but this is the same for everything. It the price of gas goes up 10% I can grumble about British Gas, but I'm not going to spend my evenings shivering.
The secret, of course, is not to rely on landlords and developers to do the right thing because they'll do the cheap thing. It's the legislate that they do the right thing.
Looks at current government: we're fucked. Remember, these were the people who gave Persimmon so much money their CEO had to quit out of embarrassment.
my experience, working in the area of carbon management is that companies are far ahead of governments in this area, whatever the graun might have said this week.
Big Pharma site i was at last week, has some very ambitious targets for both CO2 neutral and energy reductions, unbidden by govt.
-
debt is effectively the most traded 'commodity' in the world, not product).
This in all things. We've built a whole global economy based on shuffling digits and pieces of notional paper from one person to another. This is far more important than things!
-
If people are forced to choose between driving and heating the home or holidays things may change. Not taxation as polluting the planet should not be a luxury afforded to the rich. An absolute limit the same for everyone.
Except it's not the same for everyone, is it? Rich people can afford to use less fuel to heat their homes, because theirs aren't built to landlord spec. They might even have their own renewable energy sources.
True, but this is the same for everything. It the price of gas goes up 10% I can grumble about British Gas, but I'm not going to spend my evenings shivering.
The secret, of course, is not to rely on landlords and developers to do the right thing because they'll do the cheap thing. It's the legislate that they do the right thing.
Looks at current government: we're fucked. Remember, these were the people who gave Persimmon so much money their CEO had to quit out of embarrassment.
my experience, working in the area of carbon management is that companies are far ahead of governments in this area, whatever the graun might have said this week.
Big Pharma site i was at last week, has some very ambitious targets for both CO2 neutral and energy reductions, unbidden by govt.
That's true, but relying on corporate altruism will only get us so far, and sometimes I think the fact that some companies being ahead is really more a reflection on how retrograde our government is in enforcing measures. These are the people who announce their concern for the climate with a road expansion plan and reward developers for building the cheapest boxes possible at the minimum possible standards.
-
my experience, working in the area of carbon management is that companies are far ahead of governments in this area, whatever the graun might have said this week.
I'd go one further/worse: while teh man on the street will harp on about Climate Change (if you are lucky) teh same man will also suggest that someone else should be made to deal with it and it should not force any lifestyle changes on him.
It's like paying taxes, someone else should do it.
-
my experience, working in the area of carbon management is that companies are far ahead of governments in this area, whatever the graun might have said this week.
I'd go one further/worse: while teh man on the street will harp on about Climate Change (if you are lucky) teh same man will also suggest that someone else should be made to deal with it and it should not force any lifestyle changes on him.
It's like paying taxes, someone else should do it.
This. in spades.
-
Ian,
I don't think its corporate altruism any more, its now becoming some thing that is directly affecting bottom line, PR, recruitment, license to operate in some cases
-
I'm more cynical, in some cases I think it's a push to avoid more stringent legislation by doing something voluntarily. I just don't buy corporate altruism as an ultimate solution to anything, it's only a solution till the spreadsheets disagree.
-
A mail went round the other day about reducing the amount of paper towels we use to improve sustainability.
I could point out we'd be better off canning our physical coal operation, but it's probably not a career lengthening move.
-
We have just bought a (newish) car.
Not electric, MrsC is the primary user and she decided electric wouldn't work for her. So it is a big diesel.
VED is £30 a year.
That is bloody bonkers. War on the motorist my arse.
-
A 'while back' there was a rumour that some/all VED was to be ring fenced for the Road Fund. Did this ever happen? Was the idea scrapped?
-
That was a Gideon initiative. No idea if it happened. Under normal circumstances I would imagine the bastard Tories would have ploughed right on, but given the current shit show, who knows.
-
^^^ It was a small percentage that was to go to Highways England or some such title for the maintenance of strategic routes. i.e motorways and trunk roads. I too do not know if it happened.
-
My recollection was that it was the entire VED take would be ring-fenced for roads, and my understanding is that that would be for the Highways Agency to spend on trunk routes, motorways, etc, not local roads.
-
My recollection was that it was the entire VED take would be ring-fenced for roads, and my understanding is that that would be for the Highways Agency to spend on trunk routes, motorways, etc, not local roads.
That's my recollection too.
A very good friend of mine brought this up a while back. I was sitting in her house and her son was with us. We both rounded on her and said that that was not how it worked. I said it meant she only ever was allowed to drive on motorways. She waved a white flag very quickly. :)
-
Yes, in England, VED is hypothecated to the National Roads Fund, almost all of which is spent on the Highways England road network. Not sure how the non-English part is divided up.
This is a particular sore spot in London, because TfL doesn't receive any VED money, doesn't receive a local maintenance grant that local authorities, and no longer received a general subsidy grant from central government. So TfL's road network is paid for entirely by council tax payers and whatever other income sources TfL has.
(some people like to describe this is tube passengers are subsidising car users, but the tube doesn't make a net profit once you account for capital spending, so that doesn't quite work)
-
It is surely the case that London has a far greater percentage of its journeys on foot and by bike than any other UK city, so it's cyclists and pedestrians subsidising both, I would have thought. Car ownership in London is considerably lower than the UK average so that would make my hypothesis even more likely.
-
Yes, in England, VED is hypothecated to the National Roads Fund, almost all of which is spent on the Highways England road network. Not sure how the non-English part is divided up.
This is a particular sore spot in London, because TfL doesn't receive any VED money, doesn't receive a local maintenance grant that local authorities, and no longer received a general subsidy grant from central government. So TfL's road network is paid for entirely by council tax payers and whatever other income sources TfL has.
(some people like to describe this is tube passengers are subsidising car users, but the tube doesn't make a net profit once you account for capital spending, so that doesn't quite work)
So VED is still an emissions based vehicle tax for motorists, for which electric vehicles are zero rated, and which cyclists do not pay. i.e. VED is not a roadtax, as it's based on emissions and some vehicle owners are not required to pay anything. Roads are still funded from general taxation, it's just that VED contributes towards this pot of tax revenue. Sound fair correct?
-
Aha !
Not enacted yet according to this piece (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01482).
From the 2020-21 financial year income from VED in England will be hypothecated to a new road fund, to contribute towards the costs of the Strategic Road Network (SRN).
-
The Highways England network is the strategic routes: motorways and the most important primary routes. I don't think VED raises enough to pay for A, B and unclassified roads as well.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/roads-managed-by-highways-england
-
Here is a map of the Strategic Roads Network (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/841227/Network_management_22-10-19.pdf).
-
VED should pay for an equitable share of traffic police and most roads; and be charged accordingly. A fraction of that expense should come from general taxation to cover the equitable share that pedestrians and cyclists enjoy.
Look! pigs!
-
Well, some authorities at least are bidding [August 2019] for a slice of the £28.8 BILLION - a polite £700m request in this case -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOZKDEBzGWI
https://twitter.com/Transport4North/status/1189548652995469312
Our £700m bid to @transportgovuk
National Roads Fund includes the Shalesmoor Gateway scheme in
@SheffCityRegion
. The work would not only improve the road’s capacity and reliability, but also support cycling and walking.
LOL!
The London position is laid out here by Sadiq Khan, December 2018
https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2018/3287
-
VED should pay for an equitable share of traffic police and most roads; and be charged accordingly. A fraction of that expense should come from general taxation to cover the equitable share that pedestrians and cyclists enjoy.
Look! pigs!
It really shouldn't. Then people will think they paid for a right to drive on it.
J
-
VED should pay for an equitable share of traffic police and most roads; and be charged accordingly. A fraction of that expense should come from general taxation to cover the equitable share that pedestrians and cyclists enjoy.
Look! pigs!
It really shouldn't. Then people will think they paid for a right to drive on it.
J
You are Winston Churchill and ICMFP.
-
VED should pay for an equitable share of traffic police and most roads; and be charged accordingly. A fraction of that expense should come from general taxation to cover the equitable share that pedestrians and cyclists enjoy.
Look! pigs!
It really shouldn't. Then people will think they paid for a right to drive on it.
J
It's okay, if they paid their equitable share they would pay 5-10x as much and there would be 80% less cars on the roads.
-
It's okay, if they paid their equitable share they would pay 5-10x as much and there would be 80% less cars on the roads.
People won't understand that. People will shout shit at cyclists out of stupidity.
J
-
People will shout shit at cyclists out of stupidity.
Which differs from the current arrangement how?
-
People will shout shit at cyclists out of stupidity.
Which differs from the current arrangement how?
They would have some basis behind their shouts, rather than it being bollocks.
J
-
Here is a map of the Strategic Roads Network (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/841227/Network_management_22-10-19.pdf).
Perfect - so road tax will fund the roads cyclists can't go on - which is a perfect reply to those who say "you don't pay"
Not that the morons will be able to understand it.
-
Perfect response is "oh yes I do"
-
Public transport users subsidise road use in London -although obviously TfL buses do also use them.
https://www.centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Fair-Access.pdf
FAIR ACCESS: TOWARDS A TRANSPORT SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE
Centre for London 2019
In a recent report,[Barrett, S. (2019)] Centre for London recommended that the Mayor should replace the Congestion Charge and Ultra Low Emission Zone (as well as any local road tolls) with a city-wide distance-based system of road user charging – and that the proceeds should be invested in road maintenance, public transport provision and environmental and public realm measures supporting walking and cycling.
The way that London’s roads are currently funded is inherently unfair: direct income from motorists (from the Congestion Charge and Ultra Low Emission Zone) is insufficient to cover road maintenance and investment on the TfL road network, so it must be supported by Underground fares revenue and other income. It can be argued that using an enhanced road user charge to support Underground fare payers would correct that injustice
from the Mayor of London:
As of 2017/18, TfL no longer receives an operational grant from central Government and roads within London are excluded from receiving Local Highways Maintenance funding – available to other local highway authorities in England. This lack of funding has required TfL to stop all non-safety critical road renewals for two years (2018/19 to 2019/20).
-
So for vehicles post 2017, yr1 VED is emissions based, then subsequently (Standard rate) it's a rate not based on emissions, but list price. Though, zero emission vehcles are zero rated. IYO how does this change, if at all, the 'cyclist's should pay road tax' mantra.
edit. Arguably is is based on emissions, emit anything you pay...
-
Makes no difference. This 'mantra' is based on perception of paying something, the technical details are irrelevant even if known.
-
It may have already been said, but it was cyclists who got the first surfaced roads laid in the UK and US. That's if you don't count Roman roads.