Diesel cars (toxic tax) announced

Haych

ICBM said:

Haych said:

A scrappage scheme would be a better idea than taxation.

No it wouldn't. Scrapping and building new cars is far more environmentally damaging than driving old ones, almost no matter how polluting.

Yes you're right, building new cars is indeed more damaging than running old ones.  However, cars will be built whether or not the government is running a scrappage scheme, so the environmental damage will be done regardless.

My comment was also written from the viewpoint of a motorist who has been conned into buying into a fuel technology by a short-sighted government.  Yeah ok, diesel is now considered the fuel of Satan but if they're going to demonise it at least give us some kind of benefit into ditching what they told us to buy and replacing it with a feasible alternative.

I for one, if I was going to be charged £20.00 a day for driving my diesel, especially as I buy in my cars in the older end of the market, would rather invest that into an alternative replacement, a bit of help from the government in the form of a scrappage scheme would be well received.

So yes, from the viewpoint of Mr Motorist, a scrappage scheme would be better than taxation.  After all, it's not like the government is mulling over penalising new car drivers £20.00 a day because building their brand new shiny car is far more polluting than keeping their ten-year-old derv on the road.

Sporky

crunchman said:

Until there are real world Euro 6 tests and not just the current artificial conditions ones, then it should apply to all diesels.

By that reasoning it should apply to all internal combustion engined vehicles.

impmann

Erm.... a lot of talk about city use of diesel cars being a problem. Little about the diesel vans (small and Transit sized), trucks and buses that clog up the urban sprall.
Lots of focus on how there are "so many" diesel cars in cities, yet their mileage/useage is often 1/5th of the average multi-drop delivery driver... and there are 10,000s of them in London alone. Plus these boys and girls are on the road each and every day, ALL day. The majority of folks who will get slapped with with tax are those that only go into cities on an irregular basis - they are more likely to avoid city centres as a result. The delivery drivers aren't. So how exactly is this going to solve a polution problem - especially based on the mileage/useage of an irregular visitor compared to the army of multi-drop drivers?

A lot of buses belch fumes far more than any car I've ever seen - you aren't allowed visible smoke so how do the ratty old school buses get away with the stench they emit? And when was the last time you heard of one being pulled by the rozzers for a spot check...?

Fact is - they won't do anything about it. We are all too reliant on the services of diesel powered deliveries in towns and cities - couriers, Amazon, Thieving-bastards-in-red-vans etc. Plus there's all the food deliveries, raw materials for manufacturing (although there ain't much of that these days) etc. Those costs would then be passed onto us... so we'd pay anyway.

Its fucked up - and this is just another revenue stream for the government. They won't be investing it in solutions, just paying off the interest on the money we apprently owe someone...

ICBM

crunchman said:

For someone who isn't doing lots of motorway miles even a fiver a week extra would probably tip the balance and make a petrol cheaper to run - if they are capable of doing the sums properly.

I honestly think a lot of people never do the sums properly... they just saw the lower road tax - no matter how small a part of the total cost of car ownership it is - and the higher mpg figures, and forgot about everything else. I still find it amazing how much the road tax element seems to matter to some people - I've honestly never even given it a thought when deciding on a car, because it's totally insignificant compared to the other costs.

crunchman

Sporky said:

crunchman said:

Until there are real world Euro 6 tests and not just the current artificial conditions ones, then it should apply to all diesels.

By that reasoning it should apply to all internal combustion engined vehicles.

The average petrol isn't giving off 6 to 8 times the official figures in real world situations.

Evilmags

Diesel in inherently unsuited for high density population. It's fine in court tensile,  villages ect, but manky in cities. And a gallon of diesel is a lot denser than a gallon of petrol. If both were taxed per kilogramme and millage was measured per kilogramme diesel would hardly be used in cars. 

Clarky

Sporky said:

notanon said:

Diesel cars with improved performance - side effect: particulates are crossing the air blood barrier of the lung! Those particulates are inside your system - blood, brain, heart, . . .

Making me even more powerful.

SooooooperSpork ! ! !

Sporky

ICBM said:

I honestly think a lot of people never do the sums properly... they just saw the lower road tax - no matter how small a part of the total cost of car ownership it is - and the higher mpg figures, and forgot about everything else.

Plus we're only just coming out of the period where the only petrol engines are either teeny 60bhp things or daft 600bhp things. I exaggerate slightly, but there are still entire model ranges with no petrol option. The manufacturers have developed and produced what would sell, which is largely driven by what the government has encouraged people (and companies) to buy.

What would work very well with minimum pain would be to change the fleet rules and taxes. If you can get the company cars over to petrol then you start filling the used market with petrols, and you encourage the manufacturers to develop them. Targetting privately owned cars is always going to be cruder, more punitive and less successful.

crunchman said:

Sporky said:

crunchman said:

Until there are real world Euro 6 tests and not just the current artificial conditions ones, then it should apply to all diesels.

By that reasoning it should apply to all internal combustion engined vehicles.

The average petrol isn't giving off 6 to 8 times the official figures in real world situations.

Are you suggesting there don't need to be "real world" (a nicely vague term given that different people drive very differently) tests for petrols? Or are you just moving the goalposts for the sake of it?

Clarky said:

Sporky said:

notanon said:

Diesel cars with improved performance - side effect: particulates are crossing the air blood barrier of the lung! Those particulates are inside your system - blood, brain, heart, . . .

Making me even more powerful.

SooooooperSpork ! ! !

PARTICULATE POWER!

ICBM

Sporky said:

Plus we're only just coming out of the period where the only petrol engines are either teeny 60bhp things or daft 600bhp things. I exaggerate slightly, but there are still entire model ranges with no petrol option. The manufacturers have developed and produced what would sell, which is largely driven by what the government has encouraged people (and companies) to buy.

What would work very well with minimum pain would be to change the fleet rules and taxes. If you can get the company cars over to petrol then you start filling the used market with petrols, and you encourage the manufacturers to develop them. Targetting privately owned cars is always going to be cruder, more punitive and less successful.

This too. Try finding a petrol MPV or 4WD (apart from tiny or high-performance ones)...

The problem can't be solved overnight anyway given that the average car lasts something like 14 years on the road. I wouldn't object to more heavy-handed 'persuasion' for corporate fleet buyers either - maybe not to ban diesels outright, but to make them punitively expensive. They will always go where the money leads so it would be very effective, and in two to three years that would produce a lot more choice on the second hand market.

They do clearly need to do something about the Motability rules too. Disclaimer: I drive an ex-Motability car and it will probably need replacing in about three years...

hywelg

Sadik Khan has announced the ULEZ will be introduce early,  in 2019, and will be levied at £12.50


Nottingham will better that probably £15 and will cite raising fund for the next phase of the tram system as justification. They won't be able to introduce it so quickly though as there's not ANPR system installed unlike London 

Sporky

ICBM said:

I wouldn't object to more heavy-handed 'persuasion' for corporate fleet buyers either - maybe not to ban diesels outright, but to make them punitively expensive. They will always go where the money leads so it would be very effective, and in two to three years that would produce a lot more choice on the second hand market.

I don't think you need to make them overly expensive, but as I recall (and I am not a fleet manager) there are significant tax advantages to having a diesel fleet at the moment. Just putting the two equal would likely have a big effect.

ToneControl

hotpot said:

WoW! £20 a day tax to use your diesel vehicles in towns cities. http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/if-you-drive-a-diesel-car-you-could-soon-have-to-pay-up-to-£20-a-day/ar-BBzbbDU?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

what party would do this to voters?
I assume about half of normal working people have diesels. Overnight they will all be charged £440 per month extra (or is it £600 if you live in the town?) just to get to work or take the kids to school? I don't think so

ICBM

ToneControl said:

hotpot said:

WoW! £20 a day tax to use your diesel vehicles in towns cities. http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/if-you-drive-a-diesel-car-you-could-soon-have-to-pay-up-to-£20-a-day/ar-BBzbbDU?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

what party would do this to voters?
I assume about half of normal working people have diesels. Overnight they will all be charged £440 per month extra (or is it £600 if you live in the town?) just to get to work or take the kids to school? I don't think so

You mean like the parties (both Labour and Tory) who chose to make *all* the normal working people pay to drive into London?

Or the parties who have made parking so restricted and prohibitively expensive in Edinburgh that it amounts to the same thing?

It's going to happen. It has to happen, for the good of everyone who lives and works in cities. For what it's worth, I'm resigned to not being able to work in Edinburgh during the daytime for this reason, because I can't transport amps without using my car.

Sambostar

I think the new citizen of utopia isn't allowed a car, they aren't allowed trade vehicles on estates, they cannot have practical jobs and be self employed, they must not use their initiative, they must work in the service sector jobs provided for them and eat what they are provided for and shop where they are directed to and spend all their wages working all hours on a the few square feet of roof over their heads to the banks, but they shouldn't make any noise or have a good time.  Heaven help them if they lose their jobs.  In fact I'm surprised they haven't reintroduced rationing, I can't believe it's gotten this far and still people condone it and say it's for the welfare of mankind.

Give us back our guns.  1689.

hotpot

ToneControl said:

hotpot said:

WoW! £20 a day tax to use your diesel vehicles in towns cities. http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/if-you-drive-a-diesel-car-you-could-soon-have-to-pay-up-to-£20-a-day/ar-BBzbbDU?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

what party would do this to voters?
I assume about half of normal working people have diesels. Overnight they will all be charged £440 per month extra (or is it £600 if you live in the town?) just to get to work or take the kids to school? I don't think so

I don't think they have much choice, 7 member states (Uk, Germany, France, Spain, Czech republic, Luxembourg,Greece) are up before the EU courts later this year because of overstepping their CO2 limits by HUGE margins, London alone went over it's entire years CO2 limits in the first 5 days of 2017.

Cirrus

I was thinking about this while listening to the London mayor this morning on the radio talking about it.

The thing is, in London you can see why they can justify such a charge;

- London is a city with a vast public transport infrastructure. For most people living and working around the congestion charge zone, there are oyster cards, big busses, an underground network, futuristic space-tubes that suck bodies through the sky - even Star Trek transporters for the very rich. In this environment, there are real alternatives to driving your personal car - and if you drive it'll likely take you longer anyway since traffic is so bad.

- The people who make these policy decisions live in this environment where pollution is very bad and there are real public transport alternatives to cars. Also, an environment where most people around them are commuting from homes within the greater London conurbation, so a moral judgement can be made against them if they CHOOSE to drive by car rather than get a bus.

- Everyone in London has deliberately chosen to live a terrible life of constant hell. Even if they are more inconvenienced by having to use the vast public transport infrastructure, they'll just nod and deal with it as they shuffle through their terrible, overcrowded, expensive lives.

So, for London, fair enough. You can justify such a policy because there are alternatives to coerce people into using.

But for people in the rest of the country, it's more hit and miss. Last year, Birmingham spent over £16.40 on its transport network. For my own personal situation, when I drive into the city I can do it in 20 minutes, the traffic usually flows well and the only stop start is at traffic lights. And do so for a fuel cost of around £0.80 each way.

The two practical alternatives are a bus which you get stabbed to death on and would cost £2.40 each way, taking 45 minutes at best. Or a train which is a 20 minute walk, the trains come typically once an hour and the journey takes a further 20 minutes before another 20 minute walk at the other end.

If those became better options than driving, then we all might as well move to London and accept lives of constant agony because the rest of the country will have been ruined. 

Garthy

Sporky said:

ICBM said:

I honestly think a lot of people never do the sums properly... they just saw the lower road tax - no matter how small a part of the total cost of car ownership it is - and the higher mpg figures, and forgot about everything else.

Plus we're only just coming out of the period where the only petrol engines are either teeny 60bhp things or daft 600bhp things. I exaggerate slightly, but there are still entire model ranges with no petrol option. The manufacturers have developed and produced what would sell, which is largely driven by what the government has encouraged people (and companies) to buy.

What would work very well with minimum pain would be to change the fleet rules and taxes. If you can get the company cars over to petrol then you start filling the used market with petrols, and you encourage the manufacturers to develop them. Targetting privately owned cars is always going to be cruder, more punitive and less successful.

crunchman said:

Sporky said:

crunchman said:

Until there are real world Euro 6 tests and not just the current artificial conditions ones, then it should apply to all diesels.

By that reasoning it should apply to all internal combustion engined vehicles.

The average petrol isn't giving off 6 to 8 times the official figures in real world situations.

Are you suggesting there don't need to be "real world" (a nicely vague term given that different people drive very differently) tests for petrols? Or are you just moving the goalposts for the sake of it?

Clarky said:

Sporky said:

notanon said:

Diesel cars with improved performance - side effect: particulates are crossing the air blood barrier of the lung! Those particulates are inside your system - blood, brain, heart, . . .

Making me even more powerful.

SooooooperSpork ! ! !

PARTICULATE POWER!

There's only one point I don't agree with but for some reason I can't remove the rest then quote it:


"I exaggerate slightly, but there are still entire model ranges with no petrol option. The manufacturers have developed and produced what would sell, which is largely driven by what the government has encouraged people (and companies) to buy."

The two 'gamechangers' if you will, the 30d from BMW and the VAG PD engines predate the C02 driven tax by several years. Up to this point diesels were the mighty 90hp 1.9 Peugeots or 115hp 2.5 BMWs rebadged into a plethora of vehicles, both were boat anchors but came from a time when diesels required next to no maintenance, sounded like vans with rubbish NVH. Comparable performance for my 306DT was the 1.4 petrol but with 150% of the economy of the feeble petrol. 

The really big tax shake up that massively favoured diesels and punished petrols came in March 2005 and was well after the shift from diesels changing from unusual/niche to mainstream. You are absolutely right that 12 years later there are huge holes in model lines especially in cheaper  and larger MPVs/SUVs but the market shift started in 1997/1998.

 

fretmeister

Evilmags said:

Sporky said:

VimFuego said:

tho the main issue I find with wood burners is getting up to a decent speed on the motorway.

You're probably using woods that aren't sufficiently energy dense.

Brazilian rosewood and old-growth Honduras mahogany are the high performance firewoods.

Ironwood burns at ridiculous temperatures. 
Brother managed to melt a fireplace with the stuff. (Factory offcuts not decent bits) Stuff is so dense it sinks. 

I wonder if it would be a good BBQ fuel.

Many aren't - stuff like Pine is actually dangerous for smoking meat as the burning process effectively forms a type of creosote on the food.

Sporky

Garthy said:

The really big tax shake up that massively favoured diesels and punished petrols came in March 2005 and was well after the shift from diesels changing from unusual/niche to mainstream. You are absolutely right that 12 years later there are huge holes in model lines especially in cheaper  and larger MPVs/SUVs but the market shift started in 1997/1998.

I think it's still true that the tax situations have reinforced the move to diesel - I don't disagree that the engines you mention had already started a shift, but I think the CO2 thing added to the momentum.

Garthy

Sporky said:

Garthy said:

The really big tax shake up that massively favoured diesels and punished petrols came in March 2005 and was well after the shift from diesels changing from unusual/niche to mainstream. You are absolutely right that 12 years later there are huge holes in model lines especially in cheaper  and larger MPVs/SUVs but the market shift started in 1997/1998.

I think it's still true that the tax situations have reinforced the move to diesel - I don't disagree that the engines you mention had already started a shift, but I think the CO2 thing added to the momentum.

Agreed, certainly after 2005.