It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Although that does assume that the goal and the incentive are identified correctly, and that it doesn't produce a different distortion or a loophole which creates a new problem… governments don't have a good track record on that.
Yes, that too.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Ah wonderful isn't it, how a short sighted government basically conned the modern day motorist into investing in derv back in the early 90s (for, at least partially, environmental reasons IIRC, no less). Now they've got us hooked it's now evil and we all need burning at the stake (assuming that won't emit Nox and particulates) for driving diesels.
A scrappage scheme would be a better idea than taxation.
I wouldn't worry too much, the world is running out of oil faster than OPEC will ever admit and soon enough (relatively speaking) we'll be taxed on how much methane is in a horse fart.
There is no 'H' in Aych, you know that don't you? ~ Wife
Turns out there is an H in Haych! ~ Sporky
Bit of trading feedback here.
Still over 3 years from happening though.
No it wouldn't. Scrapping and building new cars is far more environmentally damaging than driving old ones, almost no matter how polluting.
It still amazes me how a couple of hundred quid a year difference in road tax seems to be enough to sway people - it's small change in the total cost of driving. You use three or four times that a year in fuel, even if you don't drive much - let alone all the other costs.
Taxation - or rather, removing a deliberately-created tax loophole - to level the playing field would be a start. Taxing diesel to correctly reflect the extra carbon content (16% higher) compared to petrol even more so.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
When someone can find me a car that will return 60-65mpg (genuine) over my 70mile daily commute, with part prices that cheap, decent performance and comfort - and that costs less than £1k to buy s/h, I'll change the car.
Til then, I'll let everyone flap around like headless chickens about how bad for health and the environment (m'kay) diesels are... and yet not even mention what they are going to do about delivery vans, buses, trucks, HGVs, trains and even boats that run on it.
As said above - got a problem, tax the individual who can least afford to pay it. Welcome to the UK. Yep, you're welcome to it...
Southampton are already talking about introducing a levy on HGV's and trucks in 2019 anyway. What about 3.5T vehicles? What if it extends to Millbrook and Redbridge and the docks or the M27?
The whole thing is a scam to keep firms buying or leasing new vehicles and keep the finance companies flowing, which is pretty much all dealerships are these days, it's gone the way of the USA. No way I'm getting a chassis cab on HP if they decide a seven year old commercial is too old they can stick their emissions laws up their arse or confine them to outside schools and actual town centres if they want to be fair..
Salisbury Council fucked the traffic flow by letting Tesco and then Lidl's build on the A36 on the Soton side, it draws traffic onto the through road whichc is already at capacity, the result is not only 2 mile tailbacks in rush hour, but often all day, as the noddies from the other side of town are drawn into the A36 through traffic.
I agree that it should be your right to drive a diesel car if you want to - but you shouldn't be artificially subsidised for doing so, either by a road tax break or the fuel being too cheap. Make the playing field level in both ways and the problem will solve itself, because the only people who will still want diesels are those doing high mileages at motorway speeds, where it's genuinely more efficient.
Then we can start using the same technology that's been developed for diesel cars to clean up the trucks and buses as well.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Is that the fictitious limits that a Euro 6 is meant to be able to achieve or the actual limits.
Until there are real world Euro 6 tests and not just the current artificial conditions ones, then it should apply to all diesels.
I had deemed that my safest bet was to buy a Euro 6 diesel. You just cannot buy a petrol van. Finding a petrol big car is next to impossible. The government have to rework their taxation policies to stop penalising petrol vehicles. For instance , as a self employed, using my car for work I can claim it as a legitimate captial asset and thereby claim an allowance (reduced for personal use proportion). If you buy a car that has emissions above 130g/km you cannot claim the full allowance, you are only able to claim at 8% p.a., effectively never able to claim all of it. Below 130g/km and you can claim at 18% p.a. Now try and find a petrol vehicle of any size thats below that.
Now if I buy a van I can claim the whole jolly lot (100%) in the first year and if that results in a financial loss I can carry that over to next year. No restrictions whatever on efficiency. So the manufacturers have no incentive to make a petrol or hybrid van.
Crazy.
The governments stance on this is to hide their heads in the sand and pretend its not their fuck up. By pushing it out to councils they avoid any of the blame. Only councils with solid majorities (like Nottingham) will risk taxing car drivers, they've done it before and will do it again.
But say I'm the ideal diesel user (still waiting for my prize) - My daily commute is a 75 mile round trip, of which ~60 miles are spent on a motorway. I drive like an old man, shuffling along with the lorries at between 56-60mph (my rule these days is that I don't force a lorry to overtake me).
But my commute starts at the edge of Birmingham. And on average, 2-3 times a week I need to drive the 7 miles into the city centre. So, say there was a £5 diesel charge to enter the CBD in Brum. That'd be approx. £800/year in new taxes, before I think about the fact that sometimes, I take my diesel and do what it's good for, long motorway miles, on journeys that end in other cities for gigs. Obviously I'd need to change my ways, so I suppose it does the job, but it seems very harsh and I can imagine the uproar if they tried to implement it.
Maybe they could let me legally remove the shitty active DPF from my car, so I can use less fuel overall. It burns more fuel to turn soot into dangerous particles that can seep through your lung tissue. It's actually got its own fuel injector. When it's regenerating you can watch yourself get 30mpg while coasting downhill at 60mph.
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
Basically if they stop trying to distort the market by tax incentives and price fuel by carbon content instead - which was the original intent of a carbon tax - the problem will largely solve itself.
There seems to be evidence that the DPFs are part of the toxicity problem as well, by reducing the particle size, so removing them might be a good idea too.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
For regular city driving, diesel isn't good. The problem is that there will always be a handful of people who do it occasionally, but for the rest of the time a diesel makes sense. My parents live in Devon, and do a lot of motorway miles, and have a caravan. For them, a diesel is the sensible option. If they drive into London 3 or 4 times a year to visit us then it's overkill to punish them too heavily.
You need to target the people who are the problem. A lot of London boroughs are now charging extra for residents parking permits for diesels. At least that is targeted at people who live in the area and shouldn't be driving diesels.
I think a £3 charge to drive into a city would be enough to massively change habits, or alternativelty charge more for parking for diesels. A lot of car parks around here have number plate recognition systems so it shouldn't be too hard to implement. Charge 50% extra for parking for diesels in cities where there is a pollution problem. Targeted measures like that would be far better.
For most people, it's a relatively marginal call about whether to buy diesel or petrol anyway. If you do less than 10,000 miles per year it's probably cheaper to run a petrol already for most people. The problem is that people are misled by headline mpg figures and don't look at the overall costs. Going forwards they won't be any cheaper to tax than a petrol so that £100 or so in favour of diesel disappears as well. 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.