The local do gooder

[ttaskmaster]

Thats the complete opposite of what he said?
If tax was charged via fuel then the emissions of your vehicle would be less important and you wouldnt have to spend £10k on a low emission vehicle.

But that is just increasing tax on fuel usage and has nothing to do with emissions, whereas the argument was about increasing fuel costs to penalise high-emission vehicles the same way VED is intended to.

 

[touch]

But that is just increasing tax on fuel usage and has nothing to do with emissions

It does (indirectly) though.
Go and read miniyazz's post again and look at the figures.

Lets say I drive a band K car - i pay £285 per year, but i only drive 3000 miles.

My friend drives a band D car - he pays £110 per year and drives 12000 miles.

My friend has produced more than double the emissions that i have produced and paid less than half the tax that i paid.

Taxing through fuel would address this somewhat: it takes into account how much the car has been used.

 

[Phal]

I managed to drive around for about 6 months with an out of date disc displayed! Never received any kind of warning from anyone... Clearly my neighbours are better than the OPs!

My up to date disc was in the glovebox lol :|

 

[miniyazz]

Not at those prices, it doesn't!!
It also does nothing about the actual emissions, either.

Those prices were just an example, as I said - I pulled them out of thin air.

If it were only about economy, we'd all be riding Honda CG125s at 90mpg. That's better than many 'more economical' cars today, but can be had for as little as £500.
The cheapest equivalents are apparently the likes of the Renault Clio dCi 90 Eco - priced around £11k and still only averaging 88mpg.
As is, most cars from 2012 onwards still only seem to average an mpg in the lower 40s. A 1986 Chevy Sprint or the older Honda Civics and Insights will beat that.
You could get the 155mpg Volvo V60, but it will cost you £44k!

So instead of being able to afford an old carburetted £500 vehicle that billows out emissions, but only costs £17 in tax and still gets 90mpg, you want me to now drop upwards of £10k on a brand new vehicle that has lower emissions, but costs even more on the fuel... and is less fuel-efficient...??!!
Oh, and I cannot maintain it myself, either - I have to take it to an expensive garage and have it plugged into their laptop before anyone even knows what's wrong with it!

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Firstly, I wasn't aware any vehicles from <2001 paid £17 VED, I thought they all had a flat rate of >£100 but based on engine size.
Regardless of that, VED on fuel would encourage you to keep your economical £500 vehicle because as you say, you'd have to spend £10k on a newer one just to keep the same economy..
Who cares if you have to take it to an expensive garage to fix it?

Don't forget that disabled drivers don't pay Tax so they would end up much worse off as most disabled people generally rely on their cars more than their able bodied counterparts.

This is true and could be slightly difficult to work around. A receipt based refund would be difficult. Maybe they'd issue a statutory refund of whatever the old VED band would have been? Who knows.

But that is just increasing tax on fuel usage and has nothing to do with emissions, whereas the argument was about increasing fuel costs to penalise high-emission vehicles the same way VED is intended to.

Fuel usage is directly related to emissions. Emissions is measured in grams CO2/km. Fuel works by burning hydrocarbons and producing CO2 and efficiency is measured in miles per gallon (or litres/100km). A car burning 100g CO2/km will be roughly twice as efficient (get twice the mpg and burn half as much fuel, therefore pay half as much fuel duty) as a car burning 200g CO2/km. High-emission vehicles are less fuel efficient than low-emission vehicles, so VED on fuel still penalises high-emission cars, just more fairly as it takes into account how far a car is driven as well as how much pollution it causes per km. It also means drivers can save the environment and pay less by driving more economically or avoiding driving when they can walk which would be a further win for the government if their aim truly is to reduce vehicle emissions.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Firstly, I wasn't aware any vehicles from <2001 paid £17 VED, I thought they all had a flat rate of >£100 but based on engine size.

Motorcycles are based on engine size, with 4 brackets ranging from £17 to £78.
M/Cs especially put out more emissions/km than cars, yet get far higher mpg, which is the best example of the flaws in taxing fuel to save the environment.

VED on fuel would encourage you to keep your economical £500 vehicle

Exactly. Nothing to do with saving the planet. The only thing I'd have to watch is the ethanol content, as it knackers the components of some older vehicles.

Who cares if you have to take it to an expensive garage to fix it?

More fuel spent driving it out there, more electricity burnt connecting it to computers, more money spent getting it fixed. Another argument against an economical environmentally friendly vehicle.

Fuel usage is directly related to emissions.

High-emission vehicles are less fuel efficient than low-emission vehicles

Mythbusters would disagree with you on that, certainly in the carbon-monoxide/hydrocarbon/nitrogen tables. While not all of these are killing the planet directly, they are still human-unfriendly pollutants and are among the vehicle emissions being measured. The big one is bikes again, but a number of other vehicles follow the same trend.

The only reason bikes are VEDed on engine size instead of emissions is the lack of data collected by the Guv'mint (which is apparently a voluntary submission, anyway).
The limited research so far puts the average m/c somewhere around the E to F bands on emissions, despite them getting almost double the average economy of 'passenger cars'. My own vehicle is probably around the G band.

Furthermore, reports are suggesting that even using emission-reducing high-ethanol fuels in the same vehicles returns lower economies.

so VED on fuel still penalises high-emission cars, just more fairly as it takes into account how far a car is driven as well as how much pollution it causes per km.

Well, no... because many of the low-emission ones are still only getting around the same mileages as high-emission ones.
I see no reason to get rid of my planet-killing 22-year old vehicle and 'Go Green' and couldn't even afford to if I was so inclined!

It also means drivers can save the environment and pay less by driving more economically or avoiding driving when they can walk which would be a further win for the government if their aim truly is to reduce vehicle emissions.

Use less fuel and rob them of their tax? Surely not!!
Walking is impractical in many areas, as is a lot of public transport. Where I live, there are no nearby bus stops or trains and, for much of the route into town, no pavements or even footpaths either. Even getting around town, the cost is ridiculously high. The only practical way to transport one's self is a private vehicle (or bicycle, for the suicidal).

So yeah, if it's about reaping more tax for the government, then yes increased fuel costs are the way forward... but if they're trying to save the planet, they're hugging the wrong tree!

 

[TheVoice]

That isn't a good reason not to do it, and I doubt it would happen anyway.

But it does happen. Fuel theft has increased as petrol has become more expensive. Same goes for heating oil.

 

[touch]

but if they're trying to save the planet, they're hugging the wrong tree!

The current system does nothing to discourage the use of cars.

If you want to pop to the shops, you'll pay the same VED whether you walk or drive.

A usage-based system (included in fuel tax, toll roads, etc) would reward people for using their car less. That would be a much more effective way to "save the planet" than everyone buying low emissions cars.

 

[mattyfez]

But it does happen. Fuel theft has increased as petrol has become more expensive. Same goes for heating oil.

Fuel is only going to get more expensive though, so theft will naturally increase and have to be dealt with regardless.

 

[ttaskmaster]

The current system does nothing to discourage the use of cars.

Precisely!
A lot has been done to make public transport far less viable, from dismantling perfectly servicable railway lines to private takeovers of the bus companies, mostly done by car manufacturers and fuel companies. This is why a private vehicle is generally still the cheaper and quicker option.
What takes public transport 45 minutes and costs £3.60, I can do with a private vehicle in under 8 minutes (even in traffic) and it costs me 40p.
The "half-hour London commute" can cost up to £45 a day!!

My guess is that someone figured they make more money from overall fuel sales than any PT they own, unless they severely overcharge on the latter as well.

A usage-based system (included in fuel tax, toll roads, etc) would reward people for using their car less. That would be a much more effective way to "save the planet" than everyone buying low emissions cars.

Having a more affordable source of reliable green transportation would be the option then, rather than pricing us out of everything bigger than a skateboard.
Hydrogen fuel cells, thorium power plants... whatever it may be.

 

[aaron]

I pay £30 per year for VED on my 1.2 Fiat 500 so for selfish reasons I would personally be against putting it as a tax on fuel.

In fact it sounds silly but it was one of the reasons (albeit a small one) I was originally interested in the car after getting stung with another £179 tax bill for my 1.3 Ford Ka.

 

[miniyazz]

Motorcycles are based on engine size, with 4 brackets ranging from £17 to £78.
M/Cs especially put out more emissions/km than cars, yet get far higher mpg, which is the best example of the flaws in taxing fuel to save the environment.

Here we have the difference between actual emissions, which you are talking about, and the only emissions the government cares about, which is CO2 and the only thing that influences VED bands (for cars). This is a flaw in taxing fuel to save the environment but certainly no more flawed than using VED bands based on CO2 emissions, or indeed engine size, which makes this option at worst as bad as the current system but at best substantially better.

Exactly. Nothing to do with saving the planet. The only thing I'd have to watch is the ethanol content, as it knackers the components of some older vehicles.


More fuel spent driving it out there, more electricity burnt connecting it to computers, more money spent getting it fixed. Another argument against an economical environmentally friendly vehicle.

I'm struggling to see the relevance of this to your argument. Are you saying no-one should buy new cars because they cost more to maintain? Initially I thought you were complaining that your car (which I now figure is a bike) cost more than you would like to fix because it's so old. So I'm just going to ignore those two paragraphs

Mythbusters would disagree with you on that, certainly in the carbon-monoxide/hydrocarbon/nitrogen tables. While not all of these are killing the planet directly, they are still human-unfriendly pollutants and are among the vehicle emissions being measured. The big one is bikes again, but a number of other vehicles follow the same trend.

Sorry, you're confusing actual emissions with emissions the government cares about again. I'm specifically talking about CO2 here, which is the single pollutant accounted for in VED banding. I'm not disputing that the other major pollutants are far worse for the environment and public health than CO2..

The only reason bikes are VEDed on engine size instead of emissions is the lack of data collected by the Guv'mint (which is apparently a voluntary submission, anyway).
The limited research so far puts the average m/c somewhere around the E to F bands on emissions, despite them getting almost double the average economy of 'passenger cars'. My own vehicle is probably around the G band.

Furthermore, reports are suggesting that even using emission-reducing high-ethanol fuels in the same vehicles returns lower economies.

What do you mean by emissions here?
Given that CO2 is inextricably linked to fuel economy I have to assume that somehow these VED bands are imagined from other pollutants?
Presumably bikes produce more pollutants in general due to a lack of catalytic converters, or something like that?

Well, no... because many of the low-emission ones are still only getting around the same mileages as high-emission ones.
I see no reason to get rid of my planet-killing 22-year old vehicle and 'Go Green' and couldn't even afford to if I was so inclined!

Again only talking about CO2 in high/low emissions..

Use less fuel and rob them of their tax? Surely not!!
Walking is impractical in many areas, as is a lot of public transport. Where I live, there are no nearby bus stops or trains and, for much of the route into town, no pavements or even footpaths either. Even getting around town, the cost is ridiculously high. The only practical way to transport one's self is a private vehicle (or bicycle, for the suicidal).

So yeah, if it's about reaping more tax for the government, then yes increased fuel costs are the way forward... but if they're trying to save the planet, they're hugging the wrong tree!

And if it's about pretending to save the environment while actually to reap in more tax, putting tax on fuel duty is better.. because it encourages people not to drive when they can walk/use public transport etc, whereas once you've paid your VED currently it doesn't matter how much or little you drive, you only pay the same amount of it.

Obviously there are people who cannot do this but speaking generally, tax on fuel would act towards persuading people to walk etc where feasible.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Here we have the difference between actual emissions, which you are talking about, and the only emissions the government cares about, which is CO2 and the only thing that influences VED bands (for cars).

Actually, some bikes are very low-emission, but others are well into the 150g/km CO2 mark and beyond. Data is incomplete for accurate profiling, though.

I'm struggling to see the relevance of this to your argument. Are you saying no-one should buy new cars because they cost more to maintain?

That was primarily about the idea of 'driving buyers (pun intended) toward new, greener cars', firstly because they were vastly more expensive to buy, and secondly because of the increased costs and the environmental impact of keeping them (including the manufacture), when compared to the vehicles I already have. VEDing my fuel will only make me want to keep the current vehicle.

Initially I thought you were complaining that your car (which I now figure is a bike) cost more than you would like to fix because it's so old.

Just the opposite - I can fix my bike up myself without having to plug it into a specialist garage's USB. Same for our car too, pretty much and even the bits I can't do myself (yet) are cheaper and easier to sort that plugging it in somewhere.
It's the modern ones that are tending toward the opposite.

Given that CO2 is inextricably linked to fuel economy I have to assume that somehow these VED bands are imagined from other pollutants?

Nope. Those are averages from actual CO2 emission measures by independent researchers, albeit on a far smaller sample of bikes and for bodies other than the British Government.
Various reports out there put the average bike CO2 emission measure between the 110-150g/km mark. However, it's not considered a sufficiently large sample to accurately profile the vast majority of bikes in the UK. Other countries have encountered similar results.

Presumably bikes produce more pollutants in general due to a lack of catalytic converters, or something like that?

Presumably, yes. Cars seem bogged down by all manner of gubbins that just won't fit on bikes.

Again only talking about CO2 in high/low emissions.

The argument is about higher-emission cars using more fuel, thus paying X more for Y more fuel. Many lower-emissions cars get the same mileage (+/- perhaps 5), so still pay the same X for using the same Y amount of fuel.
What's the point dropping an extra £10k on a zero emissions car if it still costs you the same in fuel? That's a car you don't need (and likely cannot afford) to buy, regardless of how much you may or may not want to save the planet.

And if it's about pretending to save the environment while actually to reap in more tax, putting tax on fuel duty is better.. because it encourages people not to drive when they can walk/use public transport etc

I don't believe it will... not in the slightest.
I remember when there were people utterly LIVID over the rising costs of fuel. I remember a load of them all blocking lorries and bleating how they'd *refuse* to buy petrol if it ever went over £1 a litre... well, here we are with the prices more than 50% over what they were bleating about and they're aaaall still driving their cars!

I've already discussed the public transport and how insanely unaffordable that it next to an owned vehicle.
I know people who only eat once a day, to pay for fuel so they don't have to use the god-awful public transport... but they're still driving their cars.

Obviously there are people who cannot do this but speaking generally, tax on fuel would act towards persuading people to walk etc where feasible.

Nah. Wages would just rise ("need the BMW for work, you know") and people would carry on.
Now, if you were to increase VED to £10k a year on high-emission vehicles, THAT'd save the planet a bit more!


For the record: I'm happy to go green and save the planet... but like most people, I expect the replacement transport technologies to equal or better the existing ones.

 

[miniyazz]

People like new cars, and new cars are bound by increasingly strict EU regulations regarding emissions so even if low VED was no longer a driving force (pun intended) for buying new, low-polluting cars, people would still be forced to buy environmentally friendly cars in terms of NOx, SOx, etc.

Gonna go and watch the footy now